Bally Technologies, Inc. v. Business Intelligence Systems Solutions, Inc.

Filing 72

ORDERED that the disputed claim terms in U.S. Patent Nos. 6,871,194; 7,221,367; and 7,158,968 are construed as specified in this Order. Signed by Judge Philip M. Pro on 7/11/11. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - MMM)

1
2
3

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

4

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12

***
)
BALLY TECHNOLOGIES, INC.,
)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
v.
)
)
BUSINESS INTELLIGENCE SYSTEMS )
SOLUTIONS, INC.,
)
)
Defendant.
)
)

2:10-CV-00440-PMP-GWF
ORDER

Presently before the Court are Defendant Business Intelligence Systems

13

Solutions, Inc.’s Opening Claim Construction Brief (Doc. #38), Plaintiff’s Opening

14

Markman Brief on Claim Construction (Doc. #40), and the parties’ Joint Appendix (Doc.

15

#39), all filed on December 20, 2010. Defendant Business Intelligence System Solutions,

16

Inc. filed a Claim Construction Reply Brief (Doc. #55) with supporting exhibits (Doc.

17

##56-66) on February 28, 2011. That same day, Plaintiff Bally Technologies, Inc. filed its

18

Response Markman Brief on Claim Construction (Doc. #67). The Court held a claim

19

construction hearing on June 21, 2011. (Mins. of Proceedings (Doc. #71).)

20

This is a patent infringement action brought by Bally Technologies Inc. (“Bally”)

21

against Business Intelligence Systems Solutions, Inc. (“BIS2”). Bally owns several patents,

22

including United States Patent No. 6,871,194 (the ‘194), Patent No. 7,221,367 (the ‘367),

23

and Patent No. 7,158,968 (the ‘968). The ‘367 and ‘968 patents relate to systems and

24

methods of data analysis and data visualization for the purpose of analyzing and visualizing

25

large quantities of data that merchants gather from their customers. For example, casinos

26

gather substantial amounts of data from their gaming devices, such as how much a

1

particular machine is played, at what denomination, during what time of day or what day of

2

the week. The patents enable casino operators and other merchants to put such massive

3

quantities of data into visual format so they can quickly recognize patterns of use,

4

concentrations of use or lack thereof, revenue, and other data. The data is presented in

5

graphical representations, such as a diagram of a bank of machines around which “contour

6

lines” emanate to visually represent the relative data being measured. Additionally, the

7

‘194 teaches the use of a computerized “neural network” which predicts future outputs,

8

such as revenue, based on historic data.

9

The parties have submitted several terms in the various patents for the Court to

10

construe. Some terms appear in more than one of the patents at issue. The parties agree

11

those terms are to have the same meaning in all patents in suit in which the terms appear.

12

I. LEGAL PRINCIPLES - CLAIM CONSTRUCTION

13

Patent claim construction is a question of law for the Court. Markman v.

14

Westview Instruments, Inc., 517 U.S. 370, 372 (1996). In interpreting a claim, the court

15

looks first to the intrinsic evidence of record, which consists of the claims, the specification,

16

and the prosecution history. Interactive Gift Exp., Inc. v. Compuserve Inc., 256 F.3d 1323,

17

1331 (Fed. Cir. 2001). “‘Such intrinsic evidence is the most significant source of the

18

legally operative meaning of disputed claim language.’” Id. (quoting Vitronics Corp. v.

19

Conceptronic, Inc., 90 F.3d 1576, 1582 (Fed. Cir. 1996)). Among the sources of intrinsic

20

evidence, the starting point is the claim language. Id. If the claim language is clear on its

21

face, then consideration of other intrinsic evidence is restricted to determining if those

22

sources show a deviation from the claim’s clear language. Id.

23

The court should give the claim’s words their “ordinary and customary meaning.”

24

Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1312-13 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc) (quotation

25

omitted). However, the court may construe a claim term differently from its ordinary

26

meaning in at least four instances. CCS Fitness, Inc. v. Brunswick Corp., 288 F.3d 1359,
2

1

1366-67 (Fed. Cir. 2002). First, if the patentee “acted as his own lexicographer and clearly

2

set forth a definition of the disputed claim term in either the specification or prosecution

3

history.” Id. at 1366. Second, “if the intrinsic evidence shows that the patentee

4

distinguished that term from prior art on the basis of a particular embodiment, expressly

5

disclaimed subject matter, or described a particular embodiment as important to the

6

invention.” Id. at 1366-67. Third, if the patentee’s chosen term “‘so deprive[s] the claim of

7

clarity’ as to require resort to the other intrinsic evidence for a definite meaning.” Id. at

8

1367. Finally, if the patentee phrased the claim in step- or means-plus-function format, “a

9

claim term will cover nothing more than the corresponding structure or step disclosed in the

10

specification, as well as equivalents thereto.” Id.
In construing a claim term’s ordinary meaning, the court must view the claim

11
12

terms through the lens of a person of “ordinary skill in the art in question” as of the patent

13

application filing date. Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1313. “Importantly, the person of ordinary

14

skill in the art is deemed to read the claim term not only in the context of the particular

15

claim in which the disputed term appears, but in the context of the entire patent, including

16

the specification.” Id. For example, other claims in the patent in question may assist in

17

determining a claim term’s meaning because claim terms normally are used consistently

18

throughout the patent, so use of a term in one claim can clarify the meaning of the same

19

term in other claims. Id. at 1314. Additionally, differences between claims within the

20

patent also can be useful because “the presence of a dependent claim that adds a particular

21

limitation gives rise to a presumption that the limitation in question is not present in the

22

independent claim.” Id. at 1314-15. Furthermore, “limitations stated in dependent claims

23

are not to be read into the independent claim from which they depend.” Nazomi

24

Commc’ns, Inc. v. Arm Holdings, PLC, 403 F.3d 1364, 1370 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (quotation

25

omitted).

26

///
3

1

If the claim language is not clear on its face, then consideration of other intrinsic

2

evidence may resolve the ambiguity. Interactive Gift Exp., Inc., 256 F.3d at 1331. The

3

specification “‘is always highly relevant to the claim construction analysis. Usually, it is

4

dispositive; it is the single best guide to the meaning of a disputed term.’” Phillips, 415

5

F.3d at 1315 (quoting Vitrionics, 90 F.3d at 1582). In reviewing the specification, the court

6

must not read into the claims the limitations of particular embodiments and examples

7

appearing in the specification. Comark Commc’ns, Inc. v. Harris Corp., 156 F.3d 1182,

8

1187 (Fed. Cir. 1998). The United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit has

9

“expressly rejected the contention that if a patent describes only a single embodiment, the

10

claims of the patent must be construed as being limited to that embodiment.” Phillips, 415

11

F.3d at 1323.

12

Additionally, the court may consider the patent’s prosecution history, which

13

consists of “the complete record of the proceedings before the [Patent and Trademark

14

Office (“PTO”)] and includes the prior art cited during the examination of the patent.” Id.

15

at 1317. The prosecution history “provides evidence of how the PTO and the inventor

16

understood the patent,” and it may show whether the patentee “limited the invention in the

17

course of prosecution, making the claim scope narrower than it would otherwise be.” Id.

18

However, “because the prosecution history represents an ongoing negotiation between the

19

PTO and the applicant, rather than the final product of that negotiation, it often lacks the

20

clarity of the specification and thus is less useful for claim construction purposes.” Id.

21

If a claim limitation is not clear after reviewing all intrinsic evidence, then the

22

court may refer to extrinsic evidence such as expert testimony, inventor testimony,

23

dictionaries, and learned treatises. Id.; Interactive Gift Exp., Inc., 256 F.3d at 1332.

24

However, “[s]uch instances will rarely, if ever, occur.” Interactive Gift Exp., Inc., 256 F.3d

25

at 1332 (quoting Vitronics, 90 F.3d at 1585). Additionally, the court may consider extrinsic

26

evidence throughout claim construction to understand the underlying technology. Id.
4

1

II. THE ‘194 PATENT
Bally has asserted BIS2 has infringed on claims 1-4 and 19-22 of the ‘194 patent.

2
3

The ‘194 patent teaches the use of a computerized “neural network” to predict future

4

outcomes based on past historical data. The claims at issue, with disputed terms in bold,

5

are:

6
7
8
9
10

1. An interaction prediction system comprising:
a memory in which is maintained a neural network trained on data retrieved
from an interaction database of interaction data representing interactions
between customers and gaming machines, the interaction data including at
least one gaming machine identifier, and at least one monetary value for
the interaction;
a retrieval component arranged to activate the neural network and to
retrieve prediction data representing predicted revenue from future
interactions between customers and individual gaming machines; and
a display arranged to display a representation of the prediction data.

11
12

2. An interaction prediction system as claimed in claim 1 wherein the interaction
data includes the date and/or time of the interaction and wherein the neural network
is trained on data including the date and/or time of the interaction.

13
14
15

3. An interaction prediction system as claimed in claim 1 wherein the interaction
data includes the spatial position of the machine involved in the interaction and
wherein the neural network is trained on data including the spatial position of the
machine involved in the interaction.

17

4. An interaction prediction system as claimed in claim 3 wherein the neural
network is trained on data including the machine identifier and/or spatial position
of machines neighboring the machine involved in the interactions.

18

...

19

19. A method of predicting interactions between customers and merchants, the
method comprising the steps of:
maintaining in a memory a neural network trained on data retrieved from an
interaction database of interaction data representing interactions between
customers and gaming machines, the interaction data including at least one
gaming machine identifier and at least one monetary value for the
interaction;
activating the neural network;
retrieving prediction data representing predicted revenue from future
interactions between customers and individual gaming machines from the
neural network; and
displaying a representation of the prediction data.
20. A method as claimed in claim 19 wherein the interaction data includes the date
and/or time of the interaction and wherein the neural network is trained on data
including the date and/or time of the interaction.

16

20
21
22
23
24
25
26

5

1
2
3
4

21. A method as claimed in claim 19 wherein the interaction data includes the
spatial position of the machine involved in the interaction and wherein the neural
network is trained on data including the spatial position of the machine involved in
the interaction.
22. A method as claimed in claim 21 wherein the neural network is trained on data
including the machine identifier and/or spatial position of machines neighboring the
machine involved in the interaction.

5
A. “trained on data”
6
7
8
9

Plaintiff Bally’s Proposed
Construction

Defendant BIS2’s Proposed Construction

Adjusting the weights of the neural
network using any appropriate method

The neural network performs a learning
function iteratively making predictions using
data from the database

10
11

Bally argues that although iterative training likely would be the usual scenario for

12

training a neural network in practice, the claims should not be limited in this respect for two

13

reasons. First, Bally contends claim 5 claims a neural network training method that recites

14

repetition of the learning steps, and thus would cover iterative training methods. By virtue

15

of claim differentiation, Bally contends claim 1 should not have the same limitation.

16

Additionally, Bally notes that the specification provided that the weights to the various data

17

could be adjusted by “any known algorithm suitable for the purpose.” Thus, although it

18

usually would be the case that the neural network would be trained on the data by feeding

19

through actual data, comparing the predicted results to actual results, and adjusting the

20

weights accordingly until more accurate predictions are made in comparison with the actual

21

results, that does not necessarily have to be the process by which the neural network is

22

trained. Bally contends its proposed construction comes from the specification which refers

23

to using any known algorithm suitable for the purpose.

24

BIS2 contends that “trained on data” means that the neural network is trained based

25

on data from the database which holds the data regarding customer interactions with the

26

merchant. BIS2 argues this is consistent with the specification as well as general
6

1

understanding in the field that a neural network is trained on existing data, as that is how

2

and from what source the neural network learns. BIS2 contends this is the very point of the

3

neural network and the claimed invention: that the neural network takes prior interaction

4

data, learns the patterns therein through adjusting the weights of various values until

5

predictive outputs match actual outputs, and then using those learned patterns to predict

6

future outputs. BIS2 contends that Bally’s definition is untethered to the claim and

7

specification language as well as the purpose of the invention, because “using any

8

appropriate method” could be performed by a person or program at any time for any reason,

9

unrelated to training on the data as set forth in the patent. BIS2 contends that all four

10
11

extrinsic sources upon which Bally relies show that training must be iterative.
The claim language is not clear on its face as to what is meant by “trained on data.”

12

Looking to the specification, Figure 5 shows an iterative method whereby actual data is fed

13

to the neural network, and the predicted outputs are compared to actual results. (Fig. 5; Col.

14

6, l. 50 - Col. 7, l. 31.) The weights given to the various signals between the nodes are then

15

adjusted “by any known algorithm suitable for the purpose . . . .” (Col. 7, ll. 25-29.) This

16

process “may be repeated and the weights adjusted until such time as a good fit is

17

obtained.” (Col. 7, ll. 29-32.) Although this would suggest the patent describes only an

18

iterative learning process, the patent states that Figure 5 is a “preferred method,” and thus

19

does not necessarily limit the patent to an iterative process. (Col. 6, l. 50; see also Col. 2, l.

20

54 (“Fig. 5 is a flow chart of one method of training the neural network.”).)

21

Although Figure 5 does not necessarily limit the patent claims to an iterative method,

22

one of ordinary skill in the art would understand the training method to be iterative. Bally

23

contends there is a form of training known as “unsupervised” training which is not iterative,

24

but the sources Bally relies upon demonstrate that unsupervised training also requires

25

iterative learning. (Bally’s Op. Br. (Doc. #40), Ex. C at 36 (“The training progresses

26

through many epochs, just as in supervised training.”); BIS2’s Reply Br., Ex. 4 (Doc. #61)
7

1

at 263 (discussing iterative training of neural network); BIS2’s Reply Br., Ex. 5 (Doc. #63)

2

at 15 (referring to both supervised and unsupervised training as iterative processes).) Thus,

3

one of ordinary skill in the art would understand the term “trained on data” to mean an

4

iterative training process. (BIS2 Op. Br., Cardno Decl. at ¶ 9 (“Neural network software

5

learns from existing data to recognize patterns within the data. Rather than just confirming

6

a hypothesis developed by a human, a neural network iteratively learns the patterns as it

7

processes the data.”).)
However, Bally contends that claim 5 shows an iterative system whereby the actual

8
9

data is compared to the predicted data, and then compares the predicted data to the actual

10

outputs. (Col. 8, l. 62 - Col. 9, l. 13.) Bally contends that because the limitation of an

11

iterative system is set forth in claim 5, claim 1 cannot be so limited. Bally is incorrect

12

because claim 5 is not a dependent claim of claim 1. Claims 1 and 5 are each independent

13

claims. While such a conclusion would be appropriate for a dependent claim, the same is

14

not necessarily true for independent claims. Liebel-Flarsheim Co. v. Medrad, Inc., 358 F.3d

15

898, 910 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (stating “the presence of a dependent claim that adds a particular

16

limitation raises a presumption that the limitation in question is not found in the

17

independent claim”). Independent claims 1 and 5 have different scopes. SunRace Roots

18

Enter. Co., Ltd. v. SRAM Corp., 336 F.3d 1298, 1302 (Fed. Cir. 2003) (noting the doctrine

19

of claim differentiation creates “a presumption that each claim in a patent has a different

20

scope” (quotation omitted)). Claim 5 is a training system, and thus recites a “training

21

component arranged to compare the data retrieved from the interaction database and the

22

prediction data and to adjust the neural network based on the comparison.” (Col. 9, ll. 10-

23

13.) Claim 1, in contrast, is a prediction system. It contains within it a neural network

24

which is “trained on data.” Claim 5 claims a system by which a neural network prediction

25

system such as that recited in claim 1 is trained.

26

///
8

1

The Court thus concludes that BIS2’s proposed construction is generally appropriate.

2

However, the language “using data from the database” in BIS2’s proposed construction

3

would be repetitive of other language in the claims. For example, claim 1 recites “a

4

memory in which is maintained a neural network trained on data retrieved from an

5

interaction database of interaction data representing interactions between customers and

6

gaming machines.” BIS2’s interpretation would result in repetitive language of “using data

7

from the database” and “data retrieved from an interaction database” in the independent

8

claims.

9
10
11
12
13
14

The Court therefore adopts the following construction of the claim term “trained on
data”: “The neural network performs a learning function iteratively making predictions.”
B. “activate the neural network”
Plaintiff Bally’s Proposed
Construction

Defendant BIS2’s Proposed Construction

The neural network is made available to
predict values, and then determines those
predictions

The neural network trained on data is made
available for predicting values

15
16
17

“retrieve prediction data”
Defendant BIS2’s Proposed Construction

18

Plaintiff Bally’s Proposed
Construction

19

The neural network retrieves the
predicted values

The neural network calculates and outputs
predicted revenue

20
21

The parties dispute at which step, activation or retrieval, the neural network

22

generates the predicted values. Bally contends that it makes more sense that predicted

23

values are generated before they are retrieved because once the neural network makes the

24

prediction, it need not recalculate it every time the same information is requested. Rather,

25

the neural network would retrieve the previously calculated response. Bally contends the

26

specification discusses the calculation of the prediction with the activation of the network.
9

1

Bally further contends activation is a term of art to mean applying a node’s transfer

2

function, which is more appropriately associated with activation, not retrieval.
BIS2 contends its definition of “activate the neural network” includes the

3
4

requirement that the neural network must be trained before it is activated, consistent with

5

the claim and specification language. BIS2 also argues that this claim term does not entail

6

making predictions. Rather, BIS2 contends that activating the neural network must happen

7

before the neural network outputs predicted data. BIS2 contends that neural networks do

8

not save calculations as Bally suggests; rather, the neural network would re-perform the

9

predictions, like a calculator. BIS2 thus contends that calculating and outputting the

10

predicted revenue falls within the retrieval claim term, rather than the activation claim term.

11

Finally, BIS2 contends that claim construction must refer to predicted revenue, not

12

predicted values generally, as the claim language specifically refers to predicted revenue.

13

Bally does not appear to dispute, and the specification and claim language support,

14

BIS2’s proposed construction that activation occurs after training is complete. Although

15

BIS2 suggests a reference to “revenue” must be included in construing these terms, that

16

word is included in other claim language and is not necessary to construe the claim terms at

17

issue.

18

Thus, it appears the only dispute is whether the generation of the predicted results is

19

done at the activation or the retrieval stage. The patent does not specifically refer to the

20

generation of the predicted values. It refers to activating the neural network and retrieving

21

predicted values, but it is not clear from the claim language whether generation of the

22

predicted values occurs at activation or retrieval or somewhere in between.

23
24
25
26

Looking to the specification, Figure 6 is meant to depict activating the network and
retrieving predictions. (Fig. 6; Col. 7, ll. 33-42.) As explained in the specification:
Once learning is complete, the neural network may then be used to predict
future interactions. FIG. 6 illustrates use of the preferred system for this
purpose. The neural network is first activated as shown at 400. The network
calculates and outputs predicted data representing future interactions between
10

1

customers and merchants.

2

As indicated at 402, this data is retrieved from the neural network and
as shown at 404, the data is displayed to the user, following which the neural
network is deactivated as shown at 406.

3
4

(Col. 7, ll. 33-42.) The specification mentions calculating and outputting together. This

5

suggests that calculations are performed at the retrieval stage. Such a construction

6

comports with how one of ordinary skill in the art would understand what it means to

7

retrieve results. Results are generated through a query or request to the neural network to

8

preform the prediction. In other words, the neural network performs the predictions in

9

response to a request to retrieve predicted outputs.
The Court therefore adopts BIS2’s proposed constructions for these two claim

10
11

terms.
C. “a method of predicting interactions between customers and merchants”

12
13
14
15

Plaintiff Bally’s Proposed
Construction

Defendant BIS2’s Proposed Construction

The steps are not required to be
performed in the order recited

The claimed method requires the steps to be
performed in the order recited in the claim

16
17

This dispute centers on claims 19-22, which are method claims. Bally contends that

18

although generally the steps would be performed in the order recited, the claims should not

19

be so limited. Bally contends there is a presumption that the steps need not be performed in

20

a certain order, and BIS2 has not overcome that presumption, as nothing in the claims,

21

specification, or prosecution history suggest the steps must be performed in order. BIS2

22

contends that the claim terms and the specification recite the steps in one order: (1) the

23

neural network must be maintained in memory; (2) the neural network then must be

24

activated; (3) then retrieve predictions from the neural network; and (4) finally a

25

representation of the data is displayed.

26

///
11

1

To determine whether the steps in a method claim must be performed in a certain

2

order, the Court looks “to the claim language to determine if, as a matter of logic or

3

grammar, they must be performed in the order written.” Altiris, Inc. v. Symantec Corp.,

4

318 F.3d 1363, 1369 (Fed. Cir. 2003). If not, then the Court looks “to the rest of the

5

specification to determine whether it directly or implicitly requires such a narrow

6

construction.” Id. at 1370 (quotation and emphasis omitted). “If not, the sequence in which

7

such steps are written is not a requirement.” Id.

8

Claim 19 involves the steps of (1) maintaining a neural network in memory, (2)

9

activating the neural network, (3) retrieving prediction data, and (4) displaying prediction

10

data. Claim 19 does not expressly state that the steps must be performed in a certain order.

11

However, as a matter of logic, the step of retrieving the prediction data must occur before

12

the step of displaying such data. Also, logically, the neural network must be trained before

13

it is activated to make predictions. That is the point of the invention. To make the

14

predictions to be retrieved and displayed, the neural network must be trained and activated.

15

Bally admits that this is the way the patent will be used, and it can think of no situation in

16

which one would not follow the method steps in order. As a matter of logic, the steps

17

recited in independent claim 19 must be done in order, and so must be done in order for

18

the dependent claims 20-22.

19

III. THE ‘367 PATENT

20

Bally asserts BIS2 infringed claims 1, 4, 5, 7, 10, and 11 of the ‘367 patent. The

21

‘367 patent is directed at providing data visualization techniques to present data in visual

22

format, such as monitoring the number of customers in line at a merchant’s store through a

23

video camera and graphically superimposing the data obtained over the floor plan of the

24

monitored area.

25

The claims at issue, with disputed terms in bold, are:

26

1. A data visualization system comprising:
an interaction database maintained in computer memory of interaction data
12

representing interactions between customers and merchants, the
interaction data obtained from monitoring apparatus;
a retrieval component configured to retrieve from the interaction database
data representing interactions between customers and merchants and to
construct a finite set of data values from the retrieved data;
a display component configured to display a graphical representation of at
least one merchant and a graphical representation of each of the set of
data values centered on respective data points; and
a contour generator configured to generate and display one or more contour
lines at least partly around each data point or group of data points,
each contour line representing data values that are less than the data
value(s) of the data point(s) around which the contour line is
displayed.

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

...

9

4. A data visualization system as claimed in claim 1 wherein at least some of the
data values comprise a set of data values obtained from monitoring apparatus in
the form of traffic-counting apparatus, each set of data values including an integer
representing traffic flow and a time and/or date value.

10
11

13

5. A data visualization system as claimed in claim 1 wherein at least some of the
data values comprise a set of data values obtained from monitoring apparatus in
the form of pressure-sensitive apparatus, each set of data values including a time
and/or date value.

14

...

15

7. A method of data visualization comprising the steps of:
maintaining in computer memory an interaction database of interaction data
representing interactions between customers and merchants, the
interaction data obtained from monitoring apparatus;
retrieving from the interaction database data representing interactions between
customers and merchants;
constructing a finite set of data values from the retrieved data;
displaying a graphical representation of at least one merchant;
displaying a graphical representation of each of the set of data values
centered on respective data points; and
generating and displaying one or more contour lines at least partly around
each data point or group of data points, each contour line
representing data values that are less than the data value(s) of the
data point(s) around which the contour line is displayed.

12

16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26

10. A method of data visualization as claimed in claim 7 further comprising the step
of obtaining at least some of the data values from monitoring apparatus in the
form of traffic-counting apparatus, each set of data values including an integer
representing traffic flow and a time and/or date value.
11. A method of data visualization as claimed in claim 7 further comprising the step
of obtaining at least some of the data values from monitoring apparatus in the
form of pressure-sensitive apparatus, each set of data values including a time
and/or date value.
13

1

A. “data point”

2

Plaintiff Bally’s Proposed
Construction

Defendant BIS2’s Proposed Construction

3

A single data item, or set of logically
related data values

A location in the graphical representation
that may have a data value associated with it

4
5
6
7
8

“data value”
Plaintiff Bally’s Proposed
Construction

Defendant BIS2’s Proposed Construction

The value of a certain variable at a
certain data point

The value of a certain variable

9
10

In its opening brief, Bally did not dispute BIS2’s construction of these two terms.

11

However, in its response brief, Bally disputed the definitions to the extent BIS2 is

12

contending that the data point must be a specific location in a graphic representation, rather

13

than a location in geographic space. The parties did not file reply briefs, and BIS2 did not

14

indicate at the claim construction hearing its position on whether it was attempting to limit

15

this term to a location in geographic space, rather than a location in the graphical

16

representation.

17

The ‘367 claim language refers to the generation and display of a graphical

18

representation of a merchant, with data values “centered on respective data points.” (Col. 9,

19

ll. 16-19; Col. 10, 15-16.) The specification states the following:

20
21
22

Each data point could be represented by x and y coordinates indicating the
relative position of each data point in the representation. Each data point
could also have a z value representing the height or magnitude of the data
point. This z value could indicate, for example, the length of time spent at a
particular data point. Each data value is therefore centered on a data point.

23

(Col. 6, ll. 11-17.) Later, the specification states that “[a]ppropriate x and y values are

24

generated for each data point to space the data points over a generated representation.”

25

(Col. 9, ll. 25-28.) BIS2’s expert, Dr. Berry, states that the term “data point” is a well-

26

known term of art referring to a location within a graphical representation, such as a pair of
14

1
2

x and y coordinates in the Cartesian plane.” (BIS2 Op. Br., Berry Decl. at ¶ 36.)
As the Court understands it, BIS2’s construction refers to a data point as a location

3

within the graphical representation, not necessarily a location in a geographic or spatial

4

sense. That comports with the claim and specification language, which refer to the

5

generation of a graphical display with data points located in that graphic display. The citing

6

of x and y coordinates refers to placement of the data point within the graphic display, not

7

in a spatial or geographic sense. Because this was the only dispute as to these terms, the

8

Court will adopt BIS2’s proposed constructions with the clarification that the location of

9

the data point is a location in the graphical display, not a geographic or spatial location.

10
11
12
13

B. “contour line”
Plaintiff Bally’s Proposed
Construction

Defendant BIS2’s Proposed Construction

A boundary that delineates the border
between two data values or ranges of
values

A line connecting points of data having equal
value

14
15

Bally argues a line is a set of individual points, and a defined boundary would satisfy

16

this definition. Bally contends that BIS2’s proposed construction that a contour line must

17

include a discrete line would read the preferred embodiment in Figure 3 out of the ‘367

18

patent and Figure 4 out of the ‘968 patent, a result patent law would not support. Bally

19

contends that the patents use the terms contoured representation and contour line

20

interchangeably, and Bally contends that it did not give up coverage of contoured

21

representations in patent prosecution, or at least it is ambiguous what happened during

22

patent prosecution.

23

BIS2 contends that a contour line was, at the time the patent issued, a well know

24

term of art as a line connecting points of data having equal value, and the patents do not

25

otherwise define the term. BIS2 contends by the claim term’s plain language, a contour line

26

must be an actual, visible line. Additionally, BIS2 argues that the term “contour
15

1

representations” is distinguished in the specification and was disclaimed during patent

2

prosecution, and thus a visible line is required. BIS2 further contends the ‘367 specification

3

distinguishes between contour lines and contoured representations.

4

It is not clear from the claim language what is meant by a contour line. Neither the

5

‘367 nor the ‘968 defines the term contour line. However, one of ordinary skill in the art

6

would understand the term to mean a line connecting points of equal value.1 (BIS2 Op. Br.,

7

Berry Decl. at ¶¶ 18, 20-23.) The term “contour line” was well known prior to the patents’

8

issuance, and the inventor did not otherwise define it. (Id., Exs. 6-7.) The inventor avers

9

by declaration in this matter that he used the term contour line in the ‘367 and ‘968 patents

10

consistent with the well-known meaning of the term as a line connecting equal points of

11

data value. (BIS2 Op. Br., Cardno Decl. at ¶ 18.)

12

In discussing the definition of a contour line, the parties also dispute whether a

13

contour line is something different from a contoured representation, and, if so, whether the

14

inventor disclaimed contoured representations during patent prosecution. The abstract of

15

the ‘367 patent states the following:

16
17
18
19
20
21

The invention provides a data visualization system comprising a data value
memory in which is maintained a finite set of data values obtained from
monitoring apparatus and a display configured to display a representation of
each data value centered on respective data points. The invention also
provides a contour generator which in one form is configured to generate and
display a contoured representation around each data point such that each data
point is displayed as local maximum and in another form is configured to
generate and display one or more contour lines around each data point, each
contour line representing data values which are less than the data value of the
data point around which the contour line is displayed.
(‘367 Abstract (57).) The ‘367’s specification uses two terms, contour lines and contoured

22
23
24
25
26

1

BIS2’s expert, Dr. Joseph K. Berry states that in his opinion, the patents refer to
contour lines as “discrete” lines that represent data points with equal value. (Id. at ¶ 25.) Berry
does not define what he means by “discrete.” At his deposition, Berry opined that BIS2’s
proposed claim construction did not require a “discrete” line. (Bally Resp. Br. (Doc. #67), Ex.
H at 33-34.) Whatever Dr. Berry meant by the word “discrete,” that term does not appear in
BIS2’s proposed construction and this dispute therefore is not an issue before the Court.
16

1

representations. (See, e.g., Col. 2, ll. 14-15, 36-40, 45-48.) The specification states that a

2

preferred form of the invention involves a contour generator “which in one form comprises

3

a computer-implemented software program generates a contoured representation or series of

4

contour lines in order to display a representation of the data on a client workstation as will

5

be described below.” (Col. 3, ll. 53-58.) The specification describes Figure 3 as a

6

“contoured representation.” (Fig. 3; Col. 5, ll. 48–50.) Figure 3 shows a graphical

7

representation of the merchant’s store over which is superimposed a “contoured

8

representation” in gray scale representing the number of customers per hour in various parts

9

of a merchant’s store. (Fig. 3; Col. 6, ll. 48-61.)

10

Although the specification refers to both contoured representations and contour lines,

11

the claim language refers only to contour lines. (Col. 9, l. 7- Col. 10, l. 48.) The original

12

patent application had claim language which referred to both contoured representations and

13

contour lines. (Joint Appx. (Doc. #39) [“JA”] at JA1129-31.) Claim 1 of the original

14

application claimed a contour generator configured to generate and display a “contoured

15

representation around each data point such that each data point is displayed as a local

16

maximum.” (JA1142.) Claim 2 claimed a contour generator configured to generate and

17

display “one or more contour lines around each data point, each contour line representing

18

data values which are less than the data value of the data point around which the contour

19

line is displayed.” (Id.) Figure 3 was the only figure provided that showed a contoured

20

representation. (JA1154.) There is no figure which purports to represent “contour lines”

21

specifically.

22

The United States Patent and Trademark Office (“PTO”) rejected claim 1 based on

23

prior art by Boyette and Connell. (JA1308.) Specifically, the patent examiner stated that

24

while other prior art by Boyette “doesn’t teach about a contour generator configured to

25

generate and display a contoured representation around each data point such that each data

26

point is displayed as a local maximum . . . Connell teaches the above limitation in (Fig. 5,
17

1

elements 36, 38, 40 and 42).” (Id.) The examiner also rejected claim 2 because it was

2

“similar in scope to Claim 1 and is rejected under the same rationale, in addition Connell

3

teach[es] about each contour line representing data values that are less than the data value

4

of the data point around which the contour line is displayed (Fig. 5). The slopes that ascend

5

towards and descend from the local maximum of the data points represent the values that

6

are less than the data points around which the contour line is displayed.” (Id.)

7

In response, the applicant cancelled all the original claims and added new claims.

8

(JA1323.) The applicant deleted the “contoured representation” phrase from the claims,

9

although it remained in the specification. The applicant stated the following:

10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26

As recited in new independent claims 27 and 43, the present invention
generates and displays one or more contour lines at least partly around each
data point or group of data points, each contour line representing data values
that are less than the data values of the data point around which the contour
line is displayed. It will be appreciated that in some circumstances the
contour lines around data points may overlap and will only completely
surround a data point if the data point is represented in isolation.
Nevertheless, the contour lines at least partly surround each data point or
group of data points. This feature of the applicant’s visualization system
enables a user to quickly view data points of interest.
With respect to the asserted base Boyette/Connell combination, the
Examiner acknowledges that Boyette does not expressly disclose or teach a
contour generator configured to generate and display a contour representation
around each data point, such that each data point is displayed as a local
maximum. The examiner asserts that Connell teaches this limitation in Fig. 5.
However, Fig. 5 of Connell shows a graph of all valid depth readings
shown visually in Fig. 3. Connell explains how these depth readings can be
used to identify the number of people standing in a queue using these
readings. The graph points cited by the examiner (36,38, 40 and 42) are local
maxima, but not every depth reading (the other, non maximal points on the
graph) represented in the graph is a local maxima. In fact, if every depth
reading were represented as a local maximum, the graph would not be suited
to the stated purpose in Connell for considering such a graph. The stated
purpose is that the peaks (in other words, local maxima) can be used to detect
the number of people in the queue. Not every data point or depth reading in
Connell’s Fig. 5 is represented by a local maxima. Thus, assuming, for the
sake of discussion only, that the asserted Boyette/Connell combination is
proper, Connell does not provide the disclosure or teaching missing from
Boyette.
Further, the graph in Fig. 5 is not a contour graph. Connell does not
disclose or suggest any method of generating a contour graph with or without
local maxima. Connell does not disclose or suggest the generation and
display of one or more contour lines at least partly around each data point in
18

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

the display, each data point representing data values that are less than the data
values of the data points around which the contour line is displayed.
Connell describes a system by which two images from video cameras
at two displaced locations can be used to indicate the number of objects in a
queue. This is done by comparing patches of the images at predetermined
offsets and giving a match score at each offset based on the number of offset
patches having the best match. The peaks (i.e., local maxima) in the graph of
offset match scores are used to determine the number of objects in the queue.
The use of local maxima is for the discovery of information about the queue,
not for representation of information about the queue.
By contrast, the present invention, as recited in the new claims,
displays interaction data in such a way that all data points are represented by
local maxima. All data points are represented by local maxima as contour
lines are displayed around each data point, the data values represented by the
contour lines being less than the data values of the data points around which
the contour lines are displayed.

9
10
11

(JA1323-25.)
The ‘968 patent has a similar prosecution history, although different prior art was

12

cited to reject the original claims. (JA889-94.) With respect to the ‘968 patent, the

13

examiner rejected the original claims as unpatentable over Hoppe and Fujisawa. (JA879-.)

14

The examiner stated that Hoppe “teaches a contour generator configured to generate and

15

display a contoured representation around each data point, such that each data point is

16

displayed as a local maximum.” (JA880.) In response, the applicant argued that Hoppe’s

17

“perspective wall” is not “contoured” and “although Hoppe’s query expression results are

18

displayed through a visualization based on Venn diagrams, Hoppe does not teach or suggest

19

that a series of contour lines are displayed with values less than the data point around which

20

the contour lines are displayed.” (JA896.)

21

While it might seem significant that the inventor removed the words “contoured

22

representation” from the claim language, it is not clear and unmistakable that the inventor

23

surrendered contoured representations. Cordis Corp. v. Medtronic Ave, Inc., 511 F.3d

24

1157, 1177 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (“[A]n applicant can make a binding disavowal of claim scope

25

in the course of prosecuting the patent, through arguments made to distinguish prior art

26

references. Such argument-based disavowals will be found, however, only if they constitute
19

1

clear and unmistakable surrenders of subject matter.”). The inventor made several

2

arguments in response to the examiner’s disallowance. The inventor assumed for

3

discussion purposes only that the Connell/Boyette combination was proper. That the

4

inventor was willing only to assume for purposes of discussion that this prior art was

5

applicable indicates the inventor did not expressly disavow any subject matter. The

6

inventor went on to distinguish his invention by arguing neither Connell nor Hoppe are

7

contoured.

8

Further, although it is not without precedent that a patent could be construed so as

9

not to cover the preferred embodiment, “[s]uch an interpretation is rarely, if ever, correct

10

and would require highly persuasive evidentiary support.” Elekta Instrument S.A. v.

11

O.U.R. Scientific Int’l, Inc., 214 F.3d 1302, 1308 (Fed. Cir. 2000) (quotation omitted).

12

Figure 3 of the ‘367 and Figure 4 of the ‘968 show “contoured representations” which were

13

“generated in accordance with the invention” according to the specifications. (‘367, Col. 3,

14

ll.13-14; ‘968, Col. 2, ll. 65-66.) As discussed above, the prosecution history is not highly

15

persuasive evidence that the inventor disclaimed contoured representations, particularly

16

where the specification continued to refer to contoured representations.

17

However, the Court rejects Bally’s proposal that a contoured representation is the

18

same thing as a contour line. The specification states that a preferred form of the invention

19

involves a contour generator “which in one form . . . generates a contoured representation

20

or series of contour lines in order to display a representation of the data on a client

21

workstation as will be described below.” (Col. 3, ll. 53-58.) The United States Court of

22

Appeals for the Federal Circuit has “consistently interpreted the word ‘or’ to mean that the

23

items in the sequence are alternatives to each other.” Schumer v. Lab. Computer Sys., Inc.,

24

308 F.3d 1304, 1311 (Fed. Cir. 2002). Further, a general rule of patent construction is that

25

“different claim terms are presumed to have different meanings.” Helmsderfer v. Bobrick

26

Washroom Equip., Inc., 527 F.3d 1379, 1382 (Fed. Cir. 2008).
20

A contoured representation thus is something different than a contour line. A careful

1
2

read of the specification demonstrates that while Bally oversimplifies the matter by

3

claiming the two terms are identical, the two terms are interrelated. The ‘968 patent uses

4

the term “contour representation” generically. For example, the ‘968 specification states

5

that “it is envisaged that the contoured representation could comprise an individual display

6

or could alternatively comprise animated sequences of representations comprising two or

7

more ‘still’ representations at various time intervals.” (Col. 8, ll. 15-20.) Further, the fact

8

that the inventor describes Figures 3 and 4 of the respective patents as being generated

9

using the invention, and refers to those items as contoured representations, suggests that the

10

inventor used the term contoured representation to refer generally to contoured graphical

11

representations. Thus, a contoured representation is different from contour lines in that

12

contour lines are the building blocks of a contoured representation. In other words, the

13

overall graphic is a contoured representation which is formed by using contour lines.

14

(Ferraro Dep. (Doc. #56-1) at 72 (stating that “contour representations are necessarily

15

constructed from contour lines”).
The Court therefore adopts BIS2’s proposal and construes the term “contour line”

16
17

to mean “a line connecting points of data having equal value,” with the understanding

18

that the inventor did not disclaim contoured representations during prosecution history

19

as explained herein.

20

///

21

///

22

///

23

///

24

///

25

///

26

///
21

1
2
3
4
5

C. “a graphical representation of each of the set of data values centered on
respective data points”
Plaintiff Bally’s Proposed
Construction

Defendant BIS2’s Proposed Construction

Does not need construction beyond its
ordinary meaning

All data values are displayed and centered on
respective data points

6
7
8
9
10
11

“display one or more contour lines at least partly around each data point or
group of data points”
Plaintiff Bally’s Proposed
Construction

Defendant BIS2’s Proposed Construction

Does not need construction beyond its
ordinary meaning

Each data point or group of data points has
one or more contour lines at least partly
around it

12
13

BIS2 contends that “each” means “all.” Bally responds that argues that BIS2’s

14

construction ignores the actual claim language that refers to a set of retrieved data values,

15

not each data value that exists in the interaction database. The Court concludes no

16

construction is needed beyond the ordinary meaning of the terms. BIS2’s proposed

17

constructions amount to nothing more than paraphrasing the claim terms.

18
19
20

D. “a contour generator configured to generate and display one or more
contour lines at least partly around each data point or group of data points”

22
23

Defendant BIS2’s Proposed Construction

Software that generates contours

21

Plaintiff Bally’s Proposed
Construction

Software that generates and displays a
display that contains one or more contour
lines at least partly around each data point or
group of data points

24
25
26

Bally argues this term is plain, as a contour generator generates contours and needs
no further construction. BIS2 contends that the contour generator must generate and
22

1

display lines. BIS2 also contends that Bally’s definition reads out the claim requirement

2

that the software both generate and display contour lines.

3

The parties agree a contour generator is software. The Court therefore will construe

4

the term “contour generator” to mean “software.” The rest of the claim language speaks

5

for itself and needs no further construction.

6
7
8
9
10
11

E. “each contour line representing data values that are less than the data
value(s) of the data point(s) around which the contour line is displayed”
Plaintiff Bally’s Proposed
Construction

Defendant BIS2’s Proposed Construction

Does not need construction beyond its
ordinary meaning

Each data point or group of data points is
displayed as a maximum and each contour
line represents data values that are less than
the data value(s) of the data point(s) around
which the contour line is displayed

12
13

Bally argues that BIS2’s construction attempts to import limitation language that

14

each data point be a local maximum where the inventor removed that very language from

15

the claims during prosecution before the claims were allowed. Further, Bally argues that

16

while some data points will be displayed as local maximums, the patent does not require

17

that every data point be a local maximum. Bally contends that would in fact be impossible,

18

as then you could not display numerous data points together, because they could not all be

19

local maxima. Bally further argues that if BIS2’s construction is adopted, the preferred

20

embodiment as depicted in Figure 4 would be read out of the patent. Finally, Bally argues

21

that even if the Court adopted the local maxima limitation, it would apply only to the “finite

22

set of data values” constructed, not to all data values.

23

BIS2 argues that the fact that a data point or group of data points is displayed as a

24

local maximum follows from the claim language itself, which requires the surrounding

25

contour lines to have less value than the data value of the data point. BIS2 also argues that

26

during prosecution, the applicant confirmed each data point is displayed as a maximum.
23

1

In the specification, the ‘367 mentions several embodiments as displaying contoured

2

representations around each data point “such that each data point is displayed as a local

3

maximum.” (Col. 2, ll. 14-16, 36-39, 45-48; Col. 3, ll. 1-2.) However, the specification

4

lists other embodiments that do not contain the “local maximum” language, and instead

5

refer to each contour line representing data values which are less than the data value of the

6

data point around which the contour line is displayed. (Col. 2., ll.17-26, 49-57.)

7

The allowed claim language does not include reference to a local maximum or local

8

maxima. The original proposed claim language included language in some claims that

9

“each data point is displayed as a local maximum.” (JA1142-49.) The patent examiner

10

rejected the claims as unpatentable over Boyette and Connell. (JA1307.) Specifically, the

11

examiner asserted that Connell teaches displaying a contoured representation around each

12

data point such that each data point is displayed as a local maximum. (JA1308.)

13

In response, the patentee canceled the prior asserted claims and added new claims.

14

(JA1323.) As mentioned previously, the patentee “assum[ed], for the sake of discussion

15

only, that the asserted Boyette/Connell combination is proper.” (JA1324.) Making that

16

assumption, the patentee argued that Connell does not display each graph depth point on

17

Connell’s figure 5 as a local maximum, and if it did so, it would not be suited to the purpose

18

of the Connell patent. (Id.) The patentee further argued that Connell did not show a

19

contour graph and “does not disclose or suggest any method of generating a contour graph

20

with or without local maxima.” (Id.) The patentee also states that in Connell the “use of

21

local maxima is for the discovery of information about the queue, not for representation of

22

information about the queue.” (Id.) The patentee goes on to distinguish his invention as

23

follows:

24
25
26

By contrast, the present invention, as recited in the new claims, displays
interaction data in such a way that all data points are represented by local
maxima. All data points are represented by local maxima as contour lines are
displayed around each data point, the data values represented by the contour
lines being less than the data values of the data points around which the
24

contour lines are displayed.

1
2

(JA1325.) The “local maximum” language that was in the original proposed claims was

3

removed from all the new claims. (JA1327-29.)
The ‘968 patent has a similar prosecution history. The original proposed claims

4
5

contained the local maximum language. (JA732-39.) The examiner rejected the claims as

6

unpatentable over Fujisawa and Hoppe. (JA879.) Specifically, the examiner asserted that

7

Hoppe “teaches a contour generator configured to generate and display a contoured

8

representation around each data point, such that each data point is displayed as a local

9

maximum” through the use of Venn diagrams. (JA880.)
In response, the patentee canceled some claims, and amended others. (JA889-94.)

10
11

Among the amendment was to delete the language “such that each data point is displayed as

12

a local maximum.” (Id.) In his remarks, the patentee argued that a perspective wall in

13

Hoppe should not be interpreted as contoured. (JA895.) The patentee did not make any

14

remarks specific to the “local maximum” concept, other than to state that the new claims

15

involve contour lines around each data point or group of data points, each contour line

16

representing data values less than the data values of the data point around which the contour

17

line is displayed. (JA896.)
The Court concludes no further construction is required. The claim language

18
19

specifies what it means to be a local maximum in the context of this patent: the contour

20

lines at least partly surrounding a data point or group of data points will represent values

21

less than the data point or group of data points around which the contour line is

22

displayed.

23

///

24

///

25

///

26

///
25

1
2
3
4

F. “monitoring apparatus”
Plaintiff Bally’s Proposed
Construction

Defendant BIS2’s Proposed Construction

An apparatus that generates data by
monitoring events

Apparatus that monitors human activity that
occurs in a monitored area

5
6

BIS2 contends that each claim requires monitoring of human activity in the form of

7

interactions between customers and merchants. BIS2 argues the claims distinguish between

8

two types of interaction data, data obtained from monitoring apparatus which requires

9

further processing to convert into numeric data, such as video monitoring of how many

10

customers are standing in line, versus interaction data that already consists of numeric data,

11

such as the number of callers on hold on the telephone. BIS2 contends this distinction

12

shows that the patent distinguishes between interaction data and monitoring apparatus, and

13

monitoring apparatus must involve the monitoring of human activity in a monitored area.

14

Bally contends that while the preferred embodiment refers to human activity and

15

monitored areas, there is no need to limit the broader claim language. Bally argues a jury

16

readily can understanding monitoring apparatus without further explanation. With respect

17

to the distinction between interaction data obtained from monitoring apparatus versus other

18

sources of interaction data, Bally contends that interaction data is simply data obtained from

19

monitoring apparatus, including from a telecommunications network. Bally contends that

20

dependent claims 6 and 12 refer to data from a telecommunications network, thus

21

demonstrating that the monitoring apparatus in the independent claims includes interaction

22

data obtained from a nonphysical location, such as a telecommunications network.

23

The patent does not define monitoring apparatus. The specification states that the

24

invention includes a data repository which “includes data from a variety of sources. The

25

data repository may include, for example, data obtained from monitoring apparatus for

26

example visual input apparatus, audio input apparatus, traffic counting apparatus, pressure
26

1

sensitive apparatus, and/or interaction data representing interactions between customers and

2

merchants which in one form could comprise interactions between customers and merchants

3

over a telecommunications network . . . .” (Col. 3, ll. 35-44.) The phrasing of this sentence

4

suggests the inventor was including interaction data over a telecommunications network as

5

one form of data from monitoring apparatus. Grammatically, interaction data from a

6

telecommunications network is included as an example of data obtained from monitoring

7

apparatus. If the inventor had intended to distinguish interaction data obtained from a

8

telecommunications network as something different from, rather than a form of, monitoring

9

apparatus, the sentence would read as follows: “The data repository may include, for

10

example, data obtained from monitoring apparatus for example visual input apparatus,

11

audio input apparatus, traffic counting apparatus, and/or pressure sensitive apparatus, and/or

12

interaction data representing interactions between customers and merchants . . . .” 2 See In

13

re Hyatt, 708 F.2d 712, 714 (Fed. Cir. 1983) (“A claim must be read in accordance with the

14

precepts of English grammar.”).

15

This construction is consistent with the independent and dependent claim language.

16

Independent claim 1 claims “an interaction database . . . of interaction data representing

17

interactions between customers and merchants, the interaction data obtained from

18

monitoring apparatus.” (Col. 9, ll. 7-11.) Use of the definite article “the” to describe

19

interaction data obtained from monitoring apparatus refers back to the interaction data

20
2

21
22
23
24
25
26

BIS2 suggests the difference between interaction data obtained from monitoring apparatus
and interaction data obtained from a telecommunications network is important because each type of
monitoring apparatus other than interaction data from a telecommunications network generally must
undergo further processing to produce raw data. However, that is not necessarily the case. Trafficflow apparatus, for example, could produce raw data such as how many people walked through a
turnstile on a particular day. No further processing of the data would be required. How many people
tripped a pressure-sensitive apparatus during a particular time frame likewise would require no further
processing to convert to raw data. If video or audio apparatus were motion or sound activated, and the
person collecting the data were interested only in the number of times, or times of day, such apparatus
was activated, rather than the content of an audio or visual data captured, such data also would not need
further processing.
27

1

contained in the interaction database. See Baldwin Graphic Sys., Inc. v. Siebert, Inc., 512

2

F.3d 1338, 1342 (Fed. Cir. 2008); TouchTunes Music Corp. v. Rowe Int’l Corp., 727 F.

3

Supp. 2d 226, 235 (S.D.N.Y. 2010) (holding use of definite article “‘said programmable

4

memory’ necessarily refers back to the ‘a programmable memory’ recited earlier in the

5

claim.”).3 Claim 1 further claims a retrieval component which retrieves from the interaction

6

database a “finite set of data values from the retrieved data.” (Col. 9, ll. 12-15.) Because

7

the retrieved data value set derives from the interaction database, it consists of interaction

8

data obtained from monitoring apparatus.

9

Dependent claims 2 through 5 recite the system in claim 1 “wherein at least some of

10

the data values comprise a set of data values obtained from . . . monitoring apparatus in the

11

form of” visual input apparatus (claim 2), audio input apparatus (claim 3), traffic-counting

12

apparatus (claim 4), and pressure-sensitive apparatus (claim 5). Claim 6 is a dependent

13

claim which includes the limitation that “at least some of the data values comprise a set of

14

data values obtained from a telecommunications network . . . .” (Col. 9, l. 50 - Col. 6, l.1,

15

Col. 6 ll. 44-48.)

16

Claim 6 does not follow the form of claims 2 through 5 in that it does not state that

17

the data values are obtained from monitoring apparatus in the form of a telecommunications

18

network. However, dependent claim 6 includes all the limitations of the independent claim

19

from which it derives. Claim 1 states that the data values are retrieved from the interaction

20

database and that the interaction database is comprised of interaction data obtained from

21
22
23
24
25
26

3

See also Creative Internet Advertising Corp. v. YahooA, Inc., No. 2010-1215, 2011
WL 1522414, *4 (Fed. Cir. Apr. 22, 2011) (slip copy) (holding “‘said end user communication
message” referred back to the antecedent phrase “‘an end user communication message’”);
Tuna Processors, Inc. v. Hawaii Int’l Seafood, Inc., No. 2008-1410, 2008-1435, 327 Fed.
Appx. 204, 210, 2009 WL 1084197, *6 (Fed. Cir. Apr. 23, 2009) (unpublished) (citing Robert
C. Faber, Faber on Mechanics of Patent Claim Drafting, App. D-1 (6th ed. 2008) for the
proposition that “‘the definitive article THE is used to refer to an ELEMENT which has been
established earlier in a claim’”).
28

1

monitoring apparatus. Claim 6 states that at least some of these data values, which under

2

claim 1 is obtained from monitoring apparatus, is obtained from a telecommunications

3

network. The same analysis holds for independent claim 7 and its dependent claim 12.

4

Because the dependent claims derive from the independent claims which identify the source

5

of the interaction data as monitoring apparatus, the claim language supports the

6

construction that interaction data from a telecommunications network is interaction data

7

obtained from monitoring apparatus.

8
9

As a result, the Court rejects BIS2’s proposed construction that monitoring apparatus
must involve a monitored area, to the extent monitored area means a physical location as in

10

a merchant’s store. Moreover, although BIS2 notes that Figure 3 shows a layout of a

11

merchant’s premises as the monitored area, the specification states that Figure 3 is a

12

“preferred representation generated in accordance with the invention” and is “one example

13

of a display generated by the system where a merchant operates a retail premises.” (Col. 3 at

14

13-14; Col 5, ll. 39-47.) The specification states that the “graphical representation could

15

include a spatial representation of the premises of the merchant showing for examples

16

shelves 202 and 204 and counters 205A and 206B. It will be appreciated that the particular

17

representation generated will be varied according to the nature of the data presented.” (Col.

18

5, ll. 39-47.) The specification further states that “[g]enerally a pre-defined monitored area

19

will be selected for the monitoring of human activity within that selected area.” (Col. 4, ll.

20

8-10.) Thus, although specification throughout refers to a “monitored area,” the claims do

21

not include this language, and it would be improper to import the limitation from the

22

specification and preferred embodiments into the claim language, particularly where the

23

specification uses qualifying language such as “generally.”

24

As to the proposed limitation regarding human activity, the specification often refers

25

to the monitoring apparatus capturing human activity. For example, the specification states

26

that “[v]ideo cameras and other visual input apparatus could be directed toward the
29

1

monitored area in order to capture data representing human activity within that area.” (Col.

2

4, ll. 15-17.) However, at the very start of the specification, it states that this invention is

3

“particularly but not solely designed for use in assessing and analyzing human activity such

4

as queues of people, crowds attending an event, foot traffic through a space, individuals

5

loitering in an area, and so forth.” (Col. 1, ll. 14-15.) It would be improper to take a

6

preferred embodiment from the specification and impose a requirement of monitoring of

7

human activity where the specification specifically states the invention is not designed

8

solely for analyzing human activity.

9
10
11
12
13
14

The Court therefore will adopt Bally’s proposed construction. Monitoring
apparatus means “apparatus that generates data by monitoring events.”
G. “traffic-counting apparatus”
Plaintiff Bally’s Proposed
Construction

Defendant BIS2’s Proposed Construction

Apparatus that measures traffic, such as
turnstiles, ticket machines, or similar
metering devices

A device that monitors human activity in a
monitored area by counting the number of
people passing through a monitored area

15
16
17

“traffic flow”
Defendant BIS2’s Proposed Construction

18

Plaintiff Bally’s Proposed
Construction

19

Ordinary meaning - no construction
required

Movement of people through a monitored
area

20
21
22
23
24

“pressure-sensitive apparatus”
Plaintiff Bally’s Proposed
Construction

Defendant BIS2’s Proposed Construction

A device capable of monitoring activity
in an area by way of pressure sensors

A device capable of monitoring human
activity in a monitored area by way of
pressure sensors

25
26

Relying on its proposed interpretation of monitoring apparatus, BIS2 contends that
30

1

each of these types of apparatus must be a device that monitors human activity in a

2

monitored area. Bally contends the monitoring of human activity in a monitored area likely

3

would be the use, there is no basis to restrict the claim terms in this manner. As discussed

4

with respect to the term monitoring apparatus, there is no basis for restricting the claim

5

terms to human activity or a monitored area.

6

The Court therefore adopts Bally’s proposed constructions of these terms.

7

H. “a method of data visualization”

8

Defendant BIS2’s Proposed Construction

The steps are not required to occur in the

9

Plaintiff Bally’s Proposed
Construction

Method claim requires steps to occur in the
order recited by the claim

10
order recited
11
12

Bally contends that while the steps likely will be performed in order, there is no

13

requirement in the claim that they must be done in order, and it would be improper to so

14

limit the claim language. Bally argues as an example that the last three steps of claim 7 can

15

be performed in any order with no relevant consequence. BIS2 contends that the operations

16

recited in the method must occur in order based on the claim language and the specification.

17

Claim 7 is a method claim with the following steps: (1) maintaining an interaction

18

database containing interaction data; (2) retrieving data from the interaction database; (3)

19

constructing a finite set of data values from the retrieved data; (4) displaying a graphical

20

representation of at east one merchant; (5) displaying a graphical representation of each of

21

the set of data values centered on respect data points; and (6) generating and displaying one

22

or more contour lines at least partly around each data point or group of data points. (Col.

23

10, ll. 4-21.) As discussed above, a method claim is not presumed to require a certain

24

sequence in the steps unless the claim language or the specification compel that conclusion.

25

The first three recited steps must be performed in order. Interaction data cannot be

26

retrieved from the database at step 2 if there is not first maintained an interaction database
31

1

containing interaction data in step 1. Further, a finite set of data values cannot be

2

constructed from the retrieved data in step 3 without first retrieving the data. However,

3

there is nothing that requires a particular order with respect to step 4, at least in regard to

4

steps 1, 2, or 3. Step 4 is generating a graphical representation of at least one merchant.

5

There is no logical reason why step 4 could not be done before or after any of steps 1, 2, or

6

3.

7

However, step 5 requires displaying a graphical representation of each of the set of

8

data values centered on data points and step 6 requires generating and displaying contour

9

lines at least partly around each data point or group of data points. Steps 5 and 6 thus must

10

come in order after step 3 because the data must be maintained, retrieved, and constructed

11

into a finite set of data values before such data values can be displayed in a graphic

12

representation around which contour lines are generated and displayed. Although steps 5

13

and 6 must come after step 3, there still is nothing that logically requires steps 5 or 6 to

14

come before step 4. Logically, you could display the data values centered on data points

15

and generate and display the contour lines before you superimpose it on a graphical

16

representation of at least one merchant.

17

Consequently, the Court concludes that steps 1, 2, 3, 5 and 6 must be performed in

18

that order, but step 4 may be performed at any time.

19

IV. THE ‘968 PATENT

20

Bally asserts BIS2 has infringed claims 1-8 and 19-22 of the ‘968 patent. This patent

21

is directed at allowing users to customize graphical representations of data by including

22

parameters in the database query regarding how to display the data obtained. Claims 1-8

23

and 19-22, with disputed terms bolded, are:

24
25
26

1. A data visualization system executed on a storage device, comprising:
a finite set of discrete values maintained in computer memory;
a retrieval component configured to receive a database query expression
and to retrieve a set of values from computer memory using the database
query expression;
32

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26

a display component configured to display a graphical representation of each
of the set of the retrieved data values centered on respective data points
based at least partly on display parameters included in the database
query expression; and
a contour generator configured to generate and display one or more contour
lines at least partly around each data point or group of data points, each
contour line representing data values that are less than the data value(s) of
the data point(s) around which the contour line is displayed.
2. A data visualization system as claimed in claim 1 herein the display component is
configured to optionally display a line graph representing the set of retrieved data,
the line graph defined at least party by the display parameters.
3. A data visualization system as claimed in claim 1 wherein the display component
is configured to optionally display a histogram representing the set of retrieved data
defined at least partly by the display parameters.
4. A data visualization system as claimed in claim 1 wherein the display component
is configured to optionally display a pie chart representing the set of retrieved data
defined at least partly by the display parameters.
5. A method of data visualization executed on a storage device comprising the
steps of:
maintaining in computer memory a finite set of data values;
receiving a database query expression;
retrieving a set of data values from computer memory using the database
query expression;
displaying a graphical representation of each of the set of the retrieved data
values centered on respective data points based at least partly on display
parameters included in the database query expression; and
generating and displaying one or more contour lines at least partly around
each data point or group of data points, each contour line representing data
values that are less than the data value(s) of the data point(s) around which
the contour line is displayed.
6. A method of data visualization as claimed in claim 5 further comprising the step
of displaying a line graph representing the set of retrieved data, the line graph
defined at least by the display parameters.
7. A data visualization system as claimed in claim 5 further comprising the step of
displaying a histograph representing the step of retrieved data defined at least partly
by the display parameters.
8. A method of data visualization as claimed in claim 5 further comprising the step
of displaying a pie chart representing the set of retrieved data defined at least partly
by the display parameters.
...
19. A computer program stored on tangible storage media comprising executable
instructions executed on a storage device for performing a method of executing a
database query expression, the expression having a display clause and one or more
33

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15

standard clauses, the method comprising the steps of:
identifying the display clause within the query expression;
identifying the contour sub-clause within the display clause, the contour
clause specifying a key performance indicator;
retrieving a set of data values from computer memory using one or more of
the standard clauses within the query expression;
displaying a graphical representation of each of the set of retrieved data
values centered on respective data points; and
generating and displaying one or more contour lines at points, each contour
line representing values of the key performance indicator specified in
the contour sub-clause less than the data value of the data point around
which the contour line is displayed.
20. The device of claim 19 where the method further comprises the steps of:
identifying a background sub-clause within the display clause, the background
sub-clause specifying a spatial representation;
displaying the spatial representation specified in the background sub-clause;
and
displaying the contour lines overlaid on the spatial representation.
21. The device of claim 20 where the method further comprises the steps of:
identifying a label sub-clause within the display clause, the label sub-clause
specifying test to be overlaid on the spatial representation; and
displaying the text overlaid on the spatial representation.
22. The device of claim 20 where the method further comprises the steps of:
identifying a title sub-clause within the display clause, the title sub-clause
specifying a title to be overlaid on the spatial representation; and
displaying the title overlaid on the spatial representation.

16
A. “database query expression”
17
18

Plaintiff Bally’s Proposed
Construction

Defendant BIS2’s Proposed Construction

19

The visual document request

Text that forms an SQL query and is sent to a
database

20
21

BIS2 argues that a database query expression was a well-known term as set forth in

22

the specification as text written in computer format as SQL statements which are sent to a

23

database. BIS2 contends Bally’s proposed construction is untethered to any claim or

24

specification language.

25
26

Bally responds that BIS2’s proposed instruction improperly limits the claim term by
requiring text, use of a certain computer language, and also reducing the retrieval
34

1

component to a useless “middleman.” Bally contends claim 1 is broader than this

2

construction, and nothing requires the database query expression itself to be sent to the

3

database or that it be written in SQL specifically. Bally argues the preferred embodiment

4

refers to SQL, but that does not make it a claim limitation. Bally also contends that the

5

query is sent to the system, not the database, as the retrieval component receives the query

6

and retrieves the requested data from the database. Bally argues BIS2’s construction would

7

read out the preferred embodiment in Figure 1. Bally further argues that because claim 19

8

defines the query expression as having a display clause and one or more standard SQL

9

clauses, and these limitations were not included in claim 1, it is not proper to so limit claim

10

1 under the theory of claim differentiation.

11

Bally’s proposed construction is untethered to the specification or claim language.

12

Bally refers to the visual document request, but the database query expression is aimed at

13

both non-visual and visual query commands. The Court therefore rejects Bally’s proposed

14

construction.

15

However, BIS2’s proposed construction imposes limitations not supported by the

16

claim language or specification. The claim language states that there is a retrieval

17

component which receives the database query expression and retrieves a set of values from

18

computer memory using the database query expression. (Col. 8, ll. 54-56.) This is

19

confirmed in the specification, which states that the system “further comprises a retrieval

20

component 80 which in one form is a computer implemented software program which is

21

configured to receive the query from the client 20 and to retrieve the data from the data

22

repository 40 using the database query.” (Col. 3, ll. 57-61.) The query is “normally passed

23

to a query interpreter which parses the database query expression to identify the text strings

24

of the select, from, where, group, and order clauses . . . . The query interpreter then

25

executes the query to retrieve data from a relational database . . . .” (Col. 5, ll. 17-23.) The

26

Court therefore rejects BIS2’s proposed language that the query is sent to a database.
35

1

The Court also rejects BIS2’s proposed requirement of text in SQL format. The

2

specification states that the query to obtain information “from a relational database . . . are

3

usually defined by ANSI standard structured query language statements.” (Col. 4, ll. 49-

4

52.) The use of the word “usually” suggests that the invention is not limited to only SQL.

5

Rather, the specification states the query defines “in computer recognizable terms” various

6

parameters for the query. (Col. 4., ll. 52-56.) Thus, although the query “usually” will be in

7

SQL, any computer recognizable query will suffice.

8
9
10
11
12
13

The Court therefore construes the term “database query expression” to mean “a
computer recognizable query command.”
B. “display parameters”
Plaintiff Bally’s Proposed
Construction

Defendant BIS2’s Proposed Construction

Information indicating how the data is to
be displayed in the graphical
representation

Clauses that define display characteristics of
the graphical representation to be displayed

14
15

BIS2 argues that the display parameters do not refer to “information” generally, but

16

to “clauses” as part of the text that forms the SQL query expression. Bally argues that the

17

parties both agree that display parameters generally are what tells the computer what it

18

should display and in what form. However, Bally disputes BIS2’s additional proposed

19

requirements that display parameters must be clauses and must define the display

20

characteristics. Bally contends there is nothing in the patent that requires the display

21

parameters be clauses. Bally argues that because claim 13 specifically refers to a display

22

clause, by the principal of claim differentiation, that requirement cannot be imported into

23

other claims. Bally also argues that BIS2 improperly attempts to narrow the scope of the

24

patent by requiring the display parameters define to the display characteristics, where the

25

claim language refers to the graphical representation being “partly” based on the display

26

parameters. Bally contends BIS2’s construction would vitiate the “partly” language.
36

1

Although the specification refers to “clauses” it does so in the context of SQL

2

queries, which involve clauses. As discussed with respect to the last term, the invention is

3

not be limited solely to SQL. Consequently, the use of the word “clause” would be unduly

4

limiting. Although Bally claims that construing this term to mean that it defines the display

5

characteristics would read the word “partly” out of the claim language, the word “partly”

6

still would be in the claim language. The only term being construed here is “display

7

parameters.” Thus, the full phrase “based at least partly on display parameters included in

8

the database query” still would contain the “partly” limitation.

9

The Court therefore construes the term “display parameters” to mean “a computer

10

recognizable query command that defines display characteristics of the graphical

11

representation to be displayed.”

12
13

C. “display parameters included in the database query expression”
Defendant BIS2’s Proposed Construction

Needs no further construction

14

Plaintiff Bally’s Proposed
Construction

A non-standard SQL expression portion of
the database query expression enabling a user
to specify parameters of the graphical
representation

15
16
17
18

This term needs no further construction. The Court already has construed the terms

19

display parameters and database query expression. That would leave only the words

20

“included in” to construe, and those words need no construction.

21
22

D. “a method of data visualization”
Defendant BIS2’s Proposed Construction

23

Plaintiff Bally’s Proposed
Construction

24

The steps are not required to occur in the
order recited

Method steps of (1) receiving, (2) retrieving,
and (3) displaying must be performed in
order of the claim

25
26

As with the other method claims, the parties dispute whether the steps must be
37

1

performed in order. However, with respect to this claim, Bally does not dispute that

2

retrieving and displaying logically would be required to be performed in that order, as one

3

could not display the retrieved data values until one has retrieved those values. Bally

4

contends, however, that the Court should not impose this as a claim limitation, as perhaps

5

there is a scenario where that could happen, and the Court should wait until the

6

infringement analysis to determine whether such a scenario is within the scope of the

7

claims.
Claim 5 recites a method of data visualization comprising five steps: (1) maintaining

8
9

in computer memory a finite set of data values; (2) receiving a database query expression;

10

(3) retrieving a set of data values from computer memory using the database query

11

expression; (4) displaying a graphical representation of the retrieved values; and (5)

12

generating and displaying contour lines around the data values. Logically, the steps must be

13

performed in order. To receive a database query at step 2, a database to query must exist at

14

step 1. To retrieve data values based on a database query expression at step 3, the database

15

must receive that query at step 2. To display the retrieved values at step 4, those values first

16

must be retrieved at step 3. To generate and display contour lines around the data values at

17

step 5, the data values first must be displayed at step 4, as there would be nothing around

18

which to draw the contour lines. Logically, the steps must be performed in order. Bally’s

19

“wait-and-see” approach is infringement driven, and the Court will not defer claim

20

construction to see if there is some possible means by which BIS2 might infringe on these

21

claims before deciding what the claims mean.

22

///

23

///

24

///

25

///

26

///
38

1
2
3
4

E. Claims 19-22
Plaintiff Bally’s Proposed
Construction

Defendant BIS2’s Proposed Construction

Claims 19-22 are Beauregard claims
which are treated as system claims

Claims 19-22 are method claims

5
6

Bally argues these are not method claims, they are “Beauregard” 4 claims, and as such

7

are system, not method, claims. Bally argues that in a systems claim, the software need

8

only be capable of performing the steps, it need not actually perform them. BIS2 contends

9

that claims 19-22 describe themselves as method claims, and thus are method claims. BIS2

10
11

contends there is no such thing as a separate category of “Beauregard” claims.
Independent claim 19 states it claims a “computer program stored on tangible storage

12

media comprising executable instructions executed on a storage device for performing a

13

method of executing a database query expression, the expression having display clause and

14

one or more standard clauses, the method comprising the steps of” and then a series of steps

15

are identified. By claim 19’s plain language, it is a computer program stored on tangible

16

storage media which performs a method, it is not itself a method.

17

Pursuant to the Manual of Patent Examining Procedure § 2106.1 (8th Ed. Aug.

18

2001), “[w]hen a computer program is claimed in a process where the computer is

19

executing the computer program’s instructions, USPTO personnel should treat the claim as

20

a process claim.” But, when “a computer program is recited in conjunction with a physical

21

structure, such as a computer memory, USPTO personnel should treat the claim as a product

22

claim.” Id. For example, the Federal Circuit considered a patent which claimed a

23

“computer-readable storage medium storing program code for causing a computer to

24

perform the steps of . . .” a “storage medium” claim that did not require the performance of

25
26

4

In re Beauregard, 53 F.3d 1583 (Fed. Cir. 1995).
39

1

any method steps. Finjan, Inc. v. Secure Computing Corp., 626 F.3d 1197, 1204 (Fed. Cir.

2

2010). Consequently, these claims are product or “manufacture” claims, not method claims.

3

However, regardless of what kind of claim these are, the claim language requires

4

actual execution of the steps rather than the mere capability to do so. Claim 19 states that

5

the computer program is “executed” on a storage device for performing the method. It does

6

not say it is capable of being executed or executable. Compare Cross Med. Prods., Inc. v.

7

Medtronic Sofamor Danek, Inc., 424 F.3d 1293, 1310-11 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (holding that

8

claim term of “operatively joined” required that the interface and the bone segment be

9

connected and in contact, and thus accused product that merely had capability for contact

10

with the bone did not infringe), with Fantasy Sports Properties, Inc. v. Sportsline.com, Inc.,

11

287 F.3d 1108, 1118 (Fed. Cir. 2002) (where patent language provided for a computer

12

playing football including “means for scoring . . . bonus points,” infringement could occur

13

where software included means for scoring bonus points, “regardless of whether that means

14

is activated or utilized in any way”); Intel Corp. v. U.S. Int’l Trade Comm’n, 946 F.2d 821,

15

832 (Fed. Cir. 1991) (“Because the language of claim 1 refers to ‘programmable selection

16

means’ and states ‘whereby when said alternate addressing mode is selected’ . . . the

17

accused device, to be infringing, need only be capable of operating in the page mode[ and]

18

actual page mode operation in the accused device is not required.”).

19
20
21
22
23
24

The Court therefore construes claims 19-22 to be manufacture claims which
require actual execution of the method, not merely the capability to do so.
F. “contour sub-clause”
Plaintiff Bally’s Proposed
Construction

Defendant BIS2’s Proposed Construction

Sub-clause in the display clause that
contains information about how the
contours are to be generated

Sub-clause in the display clause that
identifies a variable used for generating the
graphical representation

25
26

BIS2 contends that the claims and specifications indicate that the contour sub-clause
40

1

identifies a variable. Bally argues that while BIS2’s construction is not particularly

2

objectionable, it also is not as helpful as Bally’s construction. Bally argues its construction

3

more accurately conveys that the contour sub-clause is the sub-clause that informs the

4

computer what variable is to be used for drawing the contours.

5

Claims 13 and 19 contain the claim language “identifying a contour sub-clause

6

within the display clause, the contour clause specifying a key performance indicator.” (Col.

7

10, ll. 12-14; Col. 11, ll. 5-7.) The concept is explained at Col. 7, ll. 56-63 in reference to

8

Figure 5:

9
10
11

As indicated at 406, if a data visualization display clause is present in the
database query expression, the display clause is checked to see whether a
contour sub-clause is present in the display clause. In some circumstances
where a contour sub-clause is not present in the display clause, the invention
could be arranged to assign a default contour value or clause as indicated at
410 in which the representation is contoured on revenue for example.

12
13

The parties do not have a substantive dispute over this term. The Court will adopt BIS2’s

14

proposed construction as the clearer statement of the claim term.

15
16
17
18

G. “a key performance indicator”
Plaintiff Bally’s Proposed
Construction

Defendant BIS2’s Proposed Construction

A value of interest to a user, such as
revenue or profit

A variable that enables monitored
performance to be quantified

19
20

BIS2 contends the key performance indicator is specified in the contour sub-clause,

21

as indicated in the claim language, and must be capable of being quantified, as evidenced by

22

the examples of a key performance indicator being revenue, gross profit, net profit, and the

23

like. Bally argues a key performance indicator is a variable that is important to the user

24

generating the visual document.

25
26

The term “key performance indicator” is in claims 13 and 19, and the related
dependent claims. In the claims, the key performance indicator is specified in a contour
41

1

subclause within the display clause. The specification states the following about key

2

performance indicators:
The sub-clause contour specifies the key performance indicator or KPI
presented to a user. This KPI could include turnover as is the case with the
query described above. The KPI could also include revenue, gross profit, net
profit and any other value of interest to a user.

3
4
5
6

(Col. 6, 26-30.)

7

The Court rejects Bally’s construction as too vague and broad. Although the

8

specification uses the language “any other value of interest to a user,” BIS2 is correct that

9

this would cover material that has nothing to do with the patent. For example, a consumer’s

10

name conceivably could be of value to a user, but that has little do with displaying key

11

performance indicators on a contoured representation. The Court therefore will adopt

12

BIS2’s proposed construction, except for the reference to “monitored” performance. There

13

is no basis to include the word “monitored.” Accordingly, the Court construes the term

14

“key performance indicator” to mean “a variable that enables performance to be

15

quantified.”
H. “specifying a spatial representation”

16
17
18
19

Plaintiff Bally’s Proposed
Construction

Defendant BIS2’s Proposed Construction

Specifying a spatial layout of some
location, such as a merchant

Specifying a visual layout of a merchant’s
premises to be displayed as a background

20
BIS2 contends that the specification explains that a spatial representation is a visual

21
22

layout of a merchant’s premises. Bally argues that BIS2’s proposed restriction that the

23

spatial representation must be the layout of a merchant’s premises improperly limits the

24

claim. Bally notes the specification states the merchant premises is an example of such a

25

spatial representation, but does not limit it only to a merchant’s premises.

26

///
42

1

The Court adopts Bally’s construction and rejects BIS2’s attempt to narrow the claim

2

to only a display of a merchant’s premises. The specification states that Figure 3 is merely

3

“one example” of a spatial representation. (Col. 6, ll. 1-2.) Consequently, to limit the

4

display to the merchant’s premises improperly would read into the claim a limitation in a

5

preferred embodiment.

6

The Court construes the term “specifying a spatial representation” to mean

7

“specifying a spatial layout of some location, such as a merchant.”

8

V. CONCLUSION

9
10

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the disputed claim terms in U.S. Patent Nos.
6,871,194; 7,221,367; and 7,158,968 are construed as follows:

11

U.S. Patent No. 6,871,194
Trained on data

The neural network performs a learning
function iteratively making predictions

Activate the neural network

The neural network trained on data is made
available for predicting values

15

Retrieve prediction data

The neural network calculates and outputs
predicted revenue

16

A method of predicting interactions
between customers and merchants

The steps must be performed in order

12
13
14

17

U.S. Patent No. 7,221,367

18
Data point

A location in the graphical representation
that may have a data value associated with
it

Data value

The value of a certain variable

Contour line

19

A line connecting points of data having
equal value

A graphical representation of each of the
set of data values centered on respective
data points

No further construction is required

Display one or more contour lines at
least partly around each data point or
group of data points

No further construction is required

20
21
22
23
24
25
26

43

1

Contour generator

Software

2

Each contour line representing data
values that are less than the data value(s)
of the data point(s) around which the
contour line is displayed

No further construction is required

Monitoring apparatus

Apparatus that generates data by
monitoring events

Traffic-counting apparatus

Apparatus that measures traffic, such as
turnstiles, ticket machines, or similar
metering devices

Traffic flow

No further construction required

Pressure-sensitive apparatus

A device capable of monitoring activity in
an area by way of pressure sensors

A method of data visualization

Steps 1, 2, 3, 5 and 6 must be performed in
that order, but step 4 may be performed at
any time

3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11

U.S. Patent No. 7,158,968

12
Database query expression

A computer recognizable query command

Display parameters

A computer recognizable query command
that defines display characteristics of the
graphical representation to be displayed

Display parameters included in the
database query expression

No further construction required

A method of data visualization

The steps must be performed in order

Claims 19-22

Manufacture claims which require actual
execution of the method, not merely the
capability to do so

Contour sub-clause

Sub-clause in the display clause that
identifies a variable used for generating the
graphical representation

Key performance indicator

A variable that enables performance to be
quantified

Specifying a spatial representation

13

Specifying a spatial layout of some
location, such as a merchant

14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25

DATED: July11, 2011
_______________________________
PHILIP M. PRO
United States District Judge

26
44