{"id":3510,"date":"2023-04-05T14:16:13","date_gmt":"2023-04-05T19:16:13","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/patents.harnessip.com\/?p=3510"},"modified":"2023-04-12T09:37:32","modified_gmt":"2023-04-12T14:37:32","slug":"a-processor-can-mean-more-than-one-processor-but-at-least-one-of-multiple-processors-has-to-be-capable-of-performing-all-of-said-processors-functions","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/patents.harnessip.com\/?p=3510","title":{"rendered":"“A Processor” Can Mean More Than One Processor, But At Least One of Multiple Processors Has to be Capable of Performing All of “Said” Processor’s Functions"},"content":{"rendered":"\n

In Salazar v. AT&T Mobility LLC, [2021-2320, 2021-2376] <\/a>(April 5, 2023), the Federal Circuit affirmed judgment of noninfringement of U.S. Patent No. 5,802,467 describing technology for wireless and wired communications.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Claim 1 of the \u2018467 patent required \u201ca<\/em> microprocessor for generating a plurality of control signals used to operate said system, said<\/em> microprocessor creating a plurality of reprogrammable communication protocols, for transmission to said external devices wherein each communication protocol includes a command code set that defines the signals that are employed to communicate with each one of said external devices.\u201d  The district court construed the court construed \u201ca microprocessor\u201d to mean one microprocessor.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

On appeal, Salazar argued that the court should have interpreted a microprocessor\u201d to require one or more microprocessors, any one of which may be capable of performing each of the \u201cgenerating,\u201d \u201ccreating,\u201d and \u201cretrieving\u201d functions recited in the claims.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The Federal Circuit explained that the indefinite article \u201ca\u201d means \u201c\u2018one or more\u2019 in open-ended claims containing the transitional phrase \u2018comprising.\u2019\u201d The Court said an exception to the general rule that \u201ca\u201d  means more than one only arises where the language of the claims themselves, the specification, or the prosecution history necessitate a departure from the rule.\u201d   The Federal Circuit further explained that the use of the term \u201csaid\u201d indicates that this portion of the claim limitation is a reference back to the previously claimed\u201d term.  The claim term \u201csaid\u201d is an \u201canaphoric phrase, referring to the initial antecedent phrase\u201d. The subsequent use of the definite article \u2018said\u2019 in a claim to refer back to the same claim term does not change the general plural rule, but simply reinvokes that non-singular meaning.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The Federal Circuit reviewed prior cases interpreting \u201ca\u201d and noted in particular In re Varma, 816<\/p>\n\n\n\n

F.3d 1352 (Fed. Cir. 2016), which the district court had explained that the claim term provided certain functions that the \u201csaid microprocessor\u201d must be \u201cnecessarily configured to perform as well as the structural relationship between \u2018said microprocessor\u2019 and other structural elements.\u201d  Thus, the district court reasoned, \u201cat least one microprocessor must satisfy all the functional (and relational) limitations recited for \u2018said microprocessor.\u2019 On appeal, Salazar\u2019s argued that a correct claim construction would encompass one microprocessor capable of performing one claimed function and another microprocessor capable of performing a different claimed function, even if no one microprocessor could perform all of the recited functions.  The Federal Circuit rejected this argument, agreeing with the district court that while the claim term \u201ca microprocessor\u201d does not require there be only one microprocessor, the subsequent limitations referring back to \u201csaid microprocessor\u201d require that at least one microprocessor be capable of performing each of the claimed functions, which the Court said was \u201centirely consistent\u201d with it precedents. The Court noted that, as it stated in Varma, for a dog owner to have a dog that rolls over and fetches sticks, it does not suffice that he have two dogs, each able to perform just one of the tasks.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

In Salazar v. AT&T Mobility LLC, [2021-2320, 2021-2376] (April 5, 2023), the Federal Circuit affirmed judgment of noninfringement of U.S. Patent No. 5,802,467 describing technology for wireless and wired communications. Claim 1 of the \u2018467 patent required \u201ca microprocessor for … Continue reading →<\/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],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-3510","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-claim-constructino"],"post_mailing_queue_ids":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/patents.harnessip.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/3510","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=3510"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/patents.harnessip.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/3510\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":3511,"href":"https:\/\/patents.harnessip.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/3510\/revisions\/3511"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/patents.harnessip.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=3510"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/patents.harnessip.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=3510"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/patents.harnessip.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=3510"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}