{"id":3886,"date":"2024-02-16T16:38:00","date_gmt":"2024-02-16T22:38:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/patents.harnessip.com\/?p=3886"},"modified":"2024-07-14T12:34:32","modified_gmt":"2024-07-14T17:34:32","slug":"3886","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/patents.harnessip.com\/?p=3886","title":{"rendered":"Claim Construction Mistakes Require Vacation of Non-infringement Decision"},"content":{"rendered":"\n

In Promptu Systems Corp. v. Comcast Corp.<\/a>, [2022-1939] (February 16, 2024), the Federal Circuit vacated judgment of non-infringement of U.S. Patent Nos. 7,047,196, 7,260,538, NS RE44,326, and remanded for further proceedings<\/p>\n\n\n\n

U.S. Patent Nos. 7,047,196<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The ‘196 patent provides speech recognition services to a collection of users over a network that supports cable television and\/or video delivery.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

U.S. Patent No. 7,260,538<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The \u2019538 patent describes and claims related subject matter, but the \u2019538 patent\u2019s specification is materially different from the \u2019196 patent\u2019s specification. At a general level, the primary distinction between the \u2019196 patent and the \u2019538 patent is that the former relates to using remote voice-recognition systems to deliver requested (cable or video) content in response to a user\u2019s speech request, while the latter relates to using remote voice-recognition systems to control a user\u2019s television set based on a user\u2019s speech command.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

On appeal, Promptu challenged the district court\u2019s construction of four claim limitations: \u201cback channel,\u201d \u201cmultiplicity of received identified speech channels,\u201d \u201cspeech recognition system coupled to a wireline node\u201d (each from the \u2019196 patent), and \u201ccentralized processing station\u201d (from the \u2019538 patent).<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The Federal Circuit agreed that the district court erred by narrowly construing \u201cback channel\u201d in the \u2019196 patent as limited to \u201c[a] fixed band of frequencies or time slot(s) for transmitting signals to a speech processing system or engine.\u201d The Federal Circuit said that nothing in the claim language suggests the limitation to a fixed band of frequencies or time slots. \u201cBack\u201d undisputedly refers to the direction (upstream) opposite the direction of transmission of the programming (downstream). And whether \u201cchannel\u201d means a path or what is flowing in the path (an issue discussed infra), the Court saw nothing in the meaning of the quite general term \u201cchannel\u201d that limits the path to one defined by a fixed band of frequencies or time slots. The Federal Circuit also found that nothing in the \u2019196 patent\u2019s specification require the particular path-definition technique demanded by the district court\u2019s claim construction. Moreover, the \u2019196 patent, through an incorporated application, describes schemes that involve signal transmission along the back channel on dynamically assigned
and managed (i.e., not fixed) frequency bands or time slots.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The Federal Circuit found that the use of a fixed frequency band or time slots, in this patent,
is no more than exemplary, not required. The specification did not limit the channel-defining techniques to a fixed frequency band or time slots. Case law has long recognized that particular features recited in the specification merely as aspects of embodiments,
and not expressly or even implicitly identifying requirements of the invention, do not narrow a claim term that is otherwise broader in its ordinary meaning.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The Federal Circuit similarly rejected the district court\u2019s construction of the \u201cmultiplicity of received identified speech channels\u201d phrase in the \u2019196 patent as requiring \u201ca single band of frequencies or a designated time slot\u201d for each identified speech channel. The construction depends on the underlying construction of \u201cchannel,\u201d which the Federal Circuit rejected.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The district court construed the \u201cspeech recognition system coupled to a wireline node\u201d phrase in the \u2019196 patent, in sum, as \u201ca system whose function is speech recognition\u201d
\u201cconnected in or near\u201d \u201ca network node providing video or cable television delivery to multiple users using a wireline physical transport between those users at the node.\u201d The Federal Circuit said that construction incorrectly construes the constituent terms \u201cspeech recognition system,\u201d \u201ccoupled to,\u201d and \u201cwireline node\u201d within the claim phrase.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The Federal Circuit said that the district court\u2019s construction of \u201cspeech recognition system\u201d as \u201ca system whose function is speech recognition\u201d improperly presupposes that speech recognition is the exclusive function of the speech recognition system. Claim Construction Order, at 2 (emphasis added). The claim term, \u201cspeech recognition system,\u201d does not entail such exclusivity. Further, the \u2019196 patent\u2019s specification describes functions that a \u201c[s]peech processor computer\u201d may perform other than speech recognition, such as billing and system management.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The Federal Circuit said that the district court\u2019s construction of \u201ccoupled to\u201d as \u201cconnected
in or near\u201d incorrectly reads a proximity requirement (\u201cin or near\u201d) into the claim term at issue. The Federal Circuit has repeatedly held variants of \u201ccoupled to\u201d in patent claims to mean simply \u201cconnected to.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The Federal Circuit said that the district court improperly adopted the specification\u2019s
definition of \u201ccentralized wireline node\u201d when construing the claim term \u201cwireline node.\u201d The Federal Circuit reasoned that the “centralized\u201d modifier (used in the composite term defined in the specification) must add some meaning to or limitation on the \u201cwireline node\u201d being modified. The absence of the \u201ccentralized\u201d modifier in the claims, in turn, means that
the claimed \u201cwireline node\u201d must be broader in some way than the \u201ccentralized wireline node\u201d defined in the specification.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The Federal Circuit also found fault with the district court\u2019s claim construction of \u201ccentralized processing station\u201d in the \u2019538 patent as a \u201cdevice at a cable-TV network head-end unit that receives and performs voice recognition on voice commands, and generates and returns instructions to settop boxes to carry out the commands.\u201d The Federal Circuit noted that the location requirement: that a \u201ccentralized processing station\u201d must be located \u201cat a cable-TV network head-end unit.\u201d The \u201ccentralized processing station\u201d that is itself \u201cconfigured to\u201d perform the required voice-recognition actions (i.e., to receive and process output by applying voice recognition, to identify voice commands, and to derive instructions), the claims fairly specify that the \u201ccentralized processing station\u201d performs the claimed voice recognition, rather than merely applies the results of such voice recognition performed
elsewhere. The Federal Circuit said that the district court incorrectly required the recited \u201cdevice\u201d to be located \u201cat a cable-TV head-end unit,” based upon an example in the specification.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The Federal Circuit vacated the district court\u2019s entry of final judgment as it relates to Promptu\u2019s \u2019196 and \u2019538 patent-infringement claims. The Fedeal Circuit reversed in part and affirmed in part the district court\u2019s claim constructions, and remanded to the district
court for further proceedings.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

In Promptu Systems Corp. v. Comcast Corp., [2022-1939] (February 16, 2024), the Federal Circuit vacated judgment of non-infringement of U.S. Patent Nos. 7,047,196, 7,260,538, NS RE44,326, and remanded for further proceedings U.S. Patent Nos. 7,047,196 The ‘196 patent provides speech … 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-3886","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\/3886","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=3886"}],"version-history":[{"count":3,"href":"https:\/\/patents.harnessip.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/3886\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":3889,"href":"https:\/\/patents.harnessip.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/3886\/revisions\/3889"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/patents.harnessip.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=3886"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/patents.harnessip.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=3886"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/patents.harnessip.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=3886"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}