{"id":3024,"date":"2021-05-12T16:00:00","date_gmt":"2021-05-12T21:00:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/patents.harnessip.com\/?p=3024"},"modified":"2021-06-13T19:15:00","modified_gmt":"2021-06-14T00:15:00","slug":"intrinsic-evidence-dictionary-definitions-analogies-and-purported-plain-meaning","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/patents.harnessip.com\/?p=3024","title":{"rendered":"Intrinsic Evidence > Dictionary Definitions, Analogies, and Purported Plain Meaning"},"content":{"rendered":"\n<p>\u00a0In Uniloc 2017 LLC<em> <\/em>v. Apple Inc., <a href=\"http:\/\/www.cafc.uscourts.gov\/sites\/default\/files\/opinions-orders\/20-1403.OPINION.5-12-2021_1776581.pdf\">[2020-1403, 2020-1404<\/a>] (May 12, 2021), the Federal Circuit affirmed the PTAB determination that claims 1\u201317 and 23\u201325 of\u00a0 U.S. Patent No. 8,539,552 were invalid for obviousness.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>The \u2019552 patent is directed to a system and method to police the use of various optional features, such as caller-ID, call waiting, multi-line service, and different levels of service quality known as the \u201ccodec specification.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>On appeal, Uniloc contended that the Board\u2019s construction of \u201cintercepting\u201d in the independent claims was erroneous and that the Board incorrectly held claims 1\u201317 and 23\u201325 invalid as a result. In its cross-appeal, Apple argued that the Board erroneously rejected its challenge to claims 18\u201322.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>As to Unilock\u2019s appeal the Federal Circuit noted that because the receiving client device is the ultimate \u201cintended recipient\u201d does not mean that the sending client device cannot intentionally direct the message to the intercepting entity.\u00a0 The Federal Circuit held that the claims encompass the situation in which a sending client device intentionally sends a signaling message to the intermediate network entity that per-forms the interception. Contrary to Uniloc\u2019s contention, the Federal Circuit said that construction is not at odds with the plain meaning of the claims. The receiving client device is still \u201cthe intended recipient\u201d of the message because it is the ultimate, in-tended destination of that message.\u00a0 The Federal Circuit further further noted that the Board\u2019s construction is supported by the prosecution history. The Federal Circuit said it arrived at its construction by focusing on the prosecution history, the specification, and the context of the particular claims in which the term \u201cintercepting\u201d appears, which outweighed Uniloc\u2019s reliance on dictionary definitions, analogies, and the purported plain meaning of \u201cintercepting\u201d in isolation.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>The Federal Circuit said it arrived at its construction by focusing on the prosecution history, the specification, and the context of the particular claims in which the term \u201cintercepting\u201d appears, which outweighed Uniloc\u2019s reliance on dictionary definitions, analogies, and the purported plain meaning of \u201cintercepting\u201d in isolation.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>\u00a0In Uniloc 2017 LLC v. Apple Inc., [2020-1403, 2020-1404] (May 12, 2021), the Federal Circuit affirmed the PTAB determination that claims 1\u201317 and 23\u201325 of\u00a0 U.S. Patent No. 8,539,552 were invalid for obviousness. The \u2019552 patent is directed to a &hellip; <a href=\"https:\/\/patents.harnessip.com\/?p=3024\">Continue reading <span class=\"meta-nav\">&rarr;<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[7,12],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-3024","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-claim-constructino","category-obviousness"],"post_mailing_queue_ids":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/patents.harnessip.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/3024","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/patents.harnessip.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/patents.harnessip.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/patents.harnessip.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/2"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/patents.harnessip.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=3024"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/patents.harnessip.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/3024\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":3025,"href":"https:\/\/patents.harnessip.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/3024\/revisions\/3025"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/patents.harnessip.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=3024"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/patents.harnessip.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=3024"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/patents.harnessip.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=3024"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}