Court Opinion

ID: 9494247
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-05 15:32:51.103559+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:56:18.006260
License: Public Domain

GAJARSA, Circuit Judge,
dissenting.
I respectfully dissent from the majority opinion. It concludes that the district court erroneously held that claims 1-4 and 9-11 of the '279 patent are indefinite. Contrary to the majority, I would affirm the district court’s determination.
The majority finds that the claims are definite. However, an astute reading of the claims clearly establishes that the term “video information data stream” renders their scope and meaning ambiguous. Reference to the intrinsic evidence fails to rectify this ambiguity, and the majority’s speculative and illusive analysis of the written description to the contrary is insufficient to salvage the claims.
Where the bounds of the claims are indeterminable, the claims are invalid under 35 U.S.C. § 112, ¶ 2, as indefinite. Personalized Media Communications, LLC v. International Trade Comm’n, 161 F.3d 696, 705, 48 USPQ2d 1880, 1888 (Fed.Cir.1998). Thus, whether a claim is invalid for indefiniteness requires a determination of whether one skilled in the art would be able to discern the scope of the claim “when read in light of the specification.” Orthokinetics, Inc. v. Safety Travel Chairs, Inc., 806 F.2d 1565, 1576, 1 USPQ2d .1081, 1088 (Fed.Cir.1986). In Solomon v. Kimberly-Clark Corp., 216 F.3d 1372, 55 USPQ2d 1279 (Fed.Cir.2000), we explain the purpose of this statutory requirement, stating: “As has been noted in the context of definiteness, the inquiry under section 112, paragraph 2, *1372now focuses on whether the claims, as interpreted in view of the written description, adequately perform their function of notifying the public of the [scope of the] patentee’s right to exclude.” Id. at 1379, 216 F.3d 1372, 55 USPQ2d at 1283. When the claims become so ambiguous that one of ordinary skill in the art cannot determine their scope absent speculation, such claims are invalid for indefiniteness. See In re Steele, 49 C.C.P.A. 1295, 305 F.2d 859, 862-63, 134 USPQ 292, 295 (CCPA 1962).
The district court determined that the term “video information data stream” is used inconsistently within each of the independent claims, thereby rendering them indefinite. I agree. Claims 1 and 9 use the term “video display information data stream” to represent data output by the RAM after processing. The meaning of that term is clear. By contrast, the term “video information data stream” is used to describe three different signals: 1) the sole output of the video controller; 2) the data the RAM receives from the video controller which it transforms into a “video display information data stream” and sends to the DAC; and 3) the information the DAC receives directly from the video controller. Thus, the language of the claim suggests that the term has three different meanings. Therein lies the confusion preventing one of ordinary skill in the art from determining the scope of the claimed invention.
It is beyond dispute that the claims use the term “video information data stream” to describe both data requiring transformation and to describe data ready for display. As noted, the clause reciting the function of the RAM describes the input of a “video information data stream” to the RAM for processing. Once processed, the resultant data is referred to as a “video display information data stream.” (emphasis added), In the clause reciting the function of the DAC, on the other hand, the term “video information data stream” is used to describe data received directly from the controller. Because that data bypasses the transformation step of the RAM, the data receives no color processing prior to its use in the display. Nevertheless, the claim refers to such unprocessed data as a “video information data stream.” The DAC, however, functions only to convert the digital color data to analog form and does not perform color processing. Thus, any data received by the DAC must already be in color format and be ready for display. Because the clause reciting the function of the DAC is written to recite receipt of both unprocessed “video information” and processed “video display information,” which are necessarily different, reference in that clause to the output of the controller as simply “video information” is not only confusing but also inaccurate.
The majority’s flawed analysis fails to address use in the claims of the term “video information” to describe data sent directly to the DAC, wherein data is sent to the display without color processing. Such use of the term is inconsistent with the required conversion of “video information” by the RAM prior to transmission to the display. Accordingly, the ambiguity raised by use of the term “video information data stream,” as the sole output of the video controller, and the input to both the RAM and the DAC, cannot be rectified based simply on a reading of the plain language of the claims.
The majority is satisfied that the description in the specification resolves the ambiguity in the claims. Nothing in the written description supports use of the term “video information” to refer to data transmitted directly to the display, however, the term “video display information” is consistently used to describe data ready *1373for display. Indeed, the specification consistently uses the term “video information” to describe the data sent to the RAM for transformation prior to display. Column 1, line 65, through column 2, line 6; column 2, lines 32-41; column 3, lines 12-14; column 4, lines 23-26; column 6, lines 1-8. There is no suggestion in the description that a “video information data stream” can include “video display information.” Instead, the description states that the “video information stream” input to the RAM is converted into a “video display information stream.” Column 2, lines 1-6, 37-41; column 4, lines 1-5, 20-23; column 6, lines 9-10. Thus, the written description suggests that a “video information stream” is composed of unprocessed “video information,” while a “video display information stream” is composed of data ready for display, namely “video display information.”
The majority notes that Figure 2 depicts the transmission of 8 bit information from the controller to both the RAM and directly to the selector (and then the display). It further acknowledges that the RAM produces 18/24-bit color information, or that in the “bypass” mode “video display information” is sent directly to the display. The majority’s conclusion that in the “bypass” mode 8 bit data is transmitted directly to the selector/display, while consistent with Figure 2, is in direct conflict with the written description’s requirement that the selector/display receive 18/24-bit “video display information.”
The majority fails .to explain this inconsistency. To reiterate, the majority’s conclusion that in the bypass mode 8 bit unprocessed video information is transmitted directly to the display is inconsistent with the written description’s requirement that the display receive 18/24-bit color “display” information in that mode. No explanation of how the 8 bit video information is converted into 18/24-bit color information for display is articulated in the majority opinion. Indeed, devoid of analysis, the majority opinion washes its hands of this issue on the basis “that a person of skill in this field would understand the claims when viewed in light of the description in the specification.”
Clearly, the specification does nothing to rectify the confusion generated by the ambiguous claim language. The text of the written description is in conflict with the claims and even with the illustration of the invention shown in Figure 2. In the only portion of the specification discussing a “bypass” mode, in which data is sent directly from the video controller to the DAC, the patent states: “In certain modes of operation it may be desirable for the VGA controller 11 to bypass the RAM portion of the RAMDAC 23 and instead provide video display information directly to the DAC portion of the RAMDAC 23.” Column 4, lines 1-5 (emphasis added). Thus, in the bypass mode, the data output by the controller and sent directly to the DAC is comprised of “video display information.” The patent’s written description also explains that “video information” is used to produce “a video information stream” that is sent to the RAM. Using information stored in the RAM, the “video information” is translated into “video display information.” Column 4, lines 1-5. Thus, even in the description of the invention pertaining to the operation of the system illustrated in Figure 2, the inventors used the term “video information stream” to describe the data that must be processed for display and the term “video display information” as the data already processed by the RAM and ready for display. Such statements are inconsistent with the claims’ reference to the data bypassing the RAM as “video information,” and reference to that same data as data that is also processed by the RAM for display.
*1374Accordingly, the specification contains an internal conflict. Indeed, rather than resolving the claim ambiguity, the written description uses the disputed language in a manner contradicting the majority’s conclusion that “video information” bypasses the RAM and is transmitted to the display. Because the written description is ambiguous, if not inconsistent with the language of the claims, it can hardly be relied upon to resolve the confusing description of the invention found in the claims. Thus, the majority’s conclusion that the claims are definite because the specification discloses that 8-bit “information data” is output to the display in the bypass mode is in fact inconsistent with the written description.
As noted, the written description demonstrates that the two types of information are different. “Video information” and the contents of a “video information stream” refer to data and the contents of data streams which must be processed by the RAM prior to display, 8-bit data. On the other hand, “video display information” and the contents of a “video display information stream” correspond to data ready for display once converted to analog form, 18/24-bit color data. Thus, the majority incorrectly cites to the written description to suggest that the claims are definite. Even when read in light of the written description, the claims are indefinite because they fail to apprise one of ordinary skill in the art of their scope. Personalized Media, 161 F.3d at 705, 48 USPQ2d at 1888.
Finally, the selection performed by the DAC in no way clarifies the confusion created by the ambiguous references to a “video information data stream.” Indeed, the district court considered, but rejected, S3’s extrinsic evidence offered in support of its argument that one of ordinary skill in the art would find the claims definite. The district court found the testimony of S3’s expert lacking evidentiary support. Somehow, the majority sees through this magnificent confusion to conclude that the evidence is sufficient to reasonably apprise those of ordinary skill in the art of the scope of the invention.
Expert testimony, while useful to clarify the patented technology and to explain its meaning, may not correct errors or erase limitations or otherwise be used to diverge from the description of the invention. Aqua-Aerobic Systems, Inc. v. Aerators, Inc., 211 F.3d 1241, 1245, 54 USPQ2d 1566, 1568 (Fed.Cir.2000) (citing Markman v. Westview Instruments, Inc., 52 F.3d 967, 981, 34 USPQ2d 1321, 1331 (Fed.Cir.1995) (en banc), aff'd, 517 U.S. 370, 116 S.Ct. 1384, 134 L.Ed.2d 577, 38 USPQ2d 1461 (1996)). An expert’s opinion on the ultimate legal issue, including those under 35 U.S.C. § 112, must be supported by something more than a conclusory statement. In re Buchner, 929 F.2d 660, 661, 18 USPQ2d 1331, 1332 (Fed.Cir.1991). There must be evidence in the record to support the testimony; here the mere con-clusory statements made by the experts were correctly dismissed by the district court.
The majority believes that “a person skilled in this field would understand the meaning and scope of the data streams as set forth in the claims.” However, it fails to reconcile the fact that its own conclusion — that unprocessed 8 bit data bypasses the RAM and is sent directly to the display — is inconsistent with the evidence offered by S3. Specifically, S3’s expert acknowledges that the DAC “cannot properly read video information that has not been translated into video display information.” Although the majority attempts to confuse this issue by suggesting, without support in the intrinsic record, that the 8 bit video information data, input into the RAM in the index mode to generate l% bit color video display data, is itself display *1375data, S3’s expert’s own testimony contradicts the majority’s unsupported factual finding arrived at independently by the majority in the course of this appeal.1 Ignoring this fact, the majority has proceeded to reach its own conclusion regarding *1376the operation of the claimed invention based upon its flawed understanding of the technology beyond even that of the testimony of S3’s expert as evidence of the understanding of one of ordinary skill in the art. This is dialectic alchemy.
Because the remaining testimony offered by S3 to explain the operation of the claimed system is merely conclusory, that testimony as to the clarity of the claims should not dictate the outcome in this case. The expert’s opinion testimony, offered without factual support, was properly rejected by the district court.2 Acknowledging that the DAC “cannot properly read video information,” S3’s expert fails to explain the discrepancy between the claim’s description of the display of data that bypasses the RAM, and the use of the same data by the RAM for processing prior to display. Therefore, S3’s expert testimony fails to clarify how one stream of data can be sent both directly to the DAC and is also sent simultaneously to the RAM for translation.
We may construe ambiguous claims to preserve their validity, if possible. ACS Hosp. Sys., Inc. v. Montefiore Hosp., 732 F.2d 1572, 1577, 221 USPQ 929, 932 (Fed.Cir.1984). We may not, however, rewrite claims that fail to apprise one of ordinary skill in the art of the scope of the invention. See Rhine v. Casio, Inc., 183 F.3d 1342, 1345, 51 USPQ2d 1377, 1379 (Fed. Cir.1999). We must resist the temptation to supplement the disclosure of the patent and thereby adopt our own theory of how the claimed system might function. The majority is unable to rewrite the claims in this case because the invention cannot function as claimed and because nothing in the written description fills in the gaps sufficiently to resolve the confusion. An appellate court should not weigh evidence and undertake to make its own inconsistent factual findings from the intrinsic record to reach a desired result.
The majority further finds that the specification adequately discloses the structure of the “selector” in accordance with the requirements of 35 U.S.C. § 112, ¶ 6. The majority’s analysis of our precedent suggests that the structure need not be specifically identified in the written description to satisfy the definiteness requirements of claims written in accordance with 35 U.S.C. § 112, ¶ 6. Again, the majority washes its hands of the issue, and reverses the district court’s factual determination that the specification inadequately describes the required structure of the “selector” to the extent required by the precedent of this court. The majority instead finds that “a ‘selector’ is [a] well known electronic structure and performs a common electronic function and is readily implemented from the description in the specification.”
Even though patents are written for and by skilled artisans, the court should avoid *1377the temptation to find structure in a patent where none has been identified by the patentee. Claims written in means-plus-function format for which no structure has been identified gives rise to claims which are not technically sufficient to provide appropriate notice to a person of ordinary skill in the art of the identity of the exact structure required, and therefore, the scope of the claim, in the context of a § 112, ¶ 6 claim. The test for definiteness in such instances is whether “structure supporting a means-plus-function claim under § 112, ¶ 6 [appears] in the specification,” Atmel Corp. v. Information Storage Devices, Inc., 198 F.3d 1374, 1381, 53 USPQ2d 1225, 1229 (Fed.Cir.1999) (emphasis added), not simply in the knowledge of one of ordinary skill in the art. This requirement is the tradeoff of means-plus-function claiming, enabling patentees to claim a list of structures identified in the patent’s written description using general, functional terminology, without the burden of listing those structures within the text of the claim itself. 198 F.3d at 1381-82, 53 USPQ2d at 1230. Where the structure for performing the claimed function is neither stated or properly incorporated by reference within the description, “[fjullfillment of the § 112, ¶ 6 tradeoff cannot be satisfied.” 198 F.3d at 1382, 53 USPQ2d at 1230.
In this case, the means-plus-function limitation of claim 9 does not meet this requirement. Accordingly, I dissent from the majority’s finding on this issue as well.

. The majority incorrectly states that this dissent mischaracterizes the specification and the majority's opinion, arguing that neither the specification nor the opinion “state that video information bypassing the RAM is unprocessed.” The majority further states that “our opinion [does not] suggest [ ] that the 8-bit video information data, input into the RAM in the index mode to generate 18/24-bit color video display data, is itself display data.” Indeed, the specification does not suggest that the 8-bit data sent from the VGA controller is displayable. As noted, the written description provides that the 8-bit video data must be converted into ,8/Í4 bit video display information prior to display. As the majority correctly recognizes, the data converted by the RAM is in fact not displayable until processed. The majority opinion fails to explain how the 8-bit video information data, input into the RAM for color processing in the index mode to generate 18/24-bit color video display data, can also be displayed by the DAC in the bypass mode, given that both streams of data originate from the same stream of data output by the VGA, and are thus identical. The majority's analysis of the claimed invention, as illustrated in Figure 2 of the patent incorporated into the majority opinion, requires that the “video data stream” is 8-bit data input to the RAM for conversion into 18/24-bit display data, and that same stream of 8-bit data is also directly output to the DAC, bypassing the RAM for display without further processing. While the majority attempts to distance its analysis from the fact that the DAC cannot accept unprocessed data and the RAM cannot receive processed data, because the same data must be transmitted to both the RAM and the DAC simultaneously, the majority's analysis requires that both the RAM and the DAC receive unprocessed 8-bit data, or both receive 8-bit display data.
The majority argues that the dissent “confuse[s] indefiniteness with nonenablement.” That suggests a misunderstanding of the dissent. Whether a claim is invalid for indefiniteness requires a determination of whether one skilled in the art would be able to discern the scope of the claim “when read in light of the specification.” Orthokinetics, Inc. v. Safety Travel Chairs, Inc., 806 F.2d 1565, 1576, 1 USPQ2d 1081, 1088 (Fed.Cir.1986). Furthermore, where the language of a claim renders it so unclear “that there is no means by which the scope of the claim may be ascertained from the language used,” resort to the specification is required. Johnson Worldwide Assocs., Inc. v. Zebco Corp., 175 F.3d 985, 990, 50 USPQ2d 1607, 1610 (Fed.Cir.1999). With regard to definiteness of claims written in means-plus-function format, “the question in the case before us is not whether there has been compliance with some aspect of § 112 ¶ 1, but whether, in utilizing the authority of §112 ¶6 to claim in means-plus-function form, the drafter has adequately described structure, material, or acts which satisfy the claiming requirement of § 112 ¶ 2.” In re Dossel, 115 F.3d 942, 946, 42 USPQ2d 1881, 1885 (Fed.Cir.1997). The dissent maintains that because the claims are technically incorrect, and the written description adds nothing to clarify the ambiguity found in the claims, the claims are indefinite.
Indeed, the majority appears to have confused definiteness with indefiniteness. The majority makes the outlandish suggestion that even if the claims recite the patented invention in a manner that is technically incorrect, as in this case, the claims are definite. As noted, only if the written description clarifies and ambiguity in the claim is that suggestion correct. To compensate for the fact that the claims are technically incorrect, and the fact that the written description contains conflicting evidence regarding the operation of the claimed invention, based on evidence not before this court the majority substitutes its own theory regarding the operation of the claimed invention for the district court's factual findings, to reach the unsupported conclusion that “a person skilled in this field would understand the meaning and scope of the data streams as set forth in the claims,” even where the patentee's expert’s testimony is in conflict with the findings of the majority. There is absolutely no support in the record that the unprocessed data received by the RAM and converted into display data is simultaneously transmitted directly to the DAC for output to the display. Nor is there support in the intrinsic evidence for the majority’s finding that the VGA controller transmits 8-bit data directly to the selector/display in the bypass mode. Instead, the majority must rely upon attorney argument that appears to have been taken out of context to support that finding.

. The majority concludes that the district court "declined to give any weight to the evidence of the understanding of persons of skill in the art,” in part on the basis that the district court reviewed the disclosure from the perspective “of those outside of the relevant art.” To the contrary, the district court considered the testimony of S3's expert, as well as that of the inventor, finding it conclu-sory. Furthermore, rejecting S3's reliance on In re Dossel, 115 F.3d 942, 42 USPQ2d 1881 (Fed.Cir.1997), the court explained that in that case the evidence was such that even an unskilled person, "those outside the relevant art,” would have concluded that the structure corresponding to the claimed function was sufficiently recited in the written description. The majority's conclusion that the district court applied a "lay person” standard for determining compliance with § 112 is a misreading of the district court's analysis.