Google Inc. v. Traffic Information LLC

Filing 60

Notice of Lodgment of Markman Hearing Materials Filed by Google Inc. (Attachments: # 1 Attachment Attachment A) (Markley, Julia)

Google Inc. v. Traffic Information LLC

Doc. 60 Att. 1

ATTACHMENT A

Dockets.Justia.com

Google v. Traffic Information
Presentation by

1

Introduction

2

Phillips v. AWH Corp. (Fed. Cir. 2005)
line between construing terms and importing limitations can be discerned with reasonable certainty and predictability if the court's focus remains on understanding how a person of ordinary skill in the art would understand the claim terms."
"[T]he

3

4

IPXL Holdings, L.L.C. v. Amazon.com, Inc. (Fed. Cir. 2005)
claim is considered indefinite if it does not reasonably apprise those skilled in the art of its scope."
"A

5

6

7

Indefiniteness

8

Indefiniteness
Case law

9

IPXL Holdings, L.L.C. v. Amazon.com, Inc. (Fed. Cir. 2005)
claim is considered indefinite if it does not reasonably apprise those skilled in the art of its scope."
"A

10

Halliburton v. M-I (CAFC 2008)
if a claim term's definition can be reduced to words, the claim is still indefinite if a person of ordinary skill in the art cannot translate the definition into meaningfully precise claim scope" (at 1251)
"Even

11

United Carbon v. Binney & Smith (CAFC 2005)
statutory requirement of particularity and distinctness in claims is met only when [the claims] clearly distinguish what is claimed from what went before in the art and clearly circumscribe what is foreclosed from future enterprise." [at 236]
"The

12

Markman v. Westview (CAFC 1996)
limits of a patent must be known for the protection of the patentee, the encouragement of the inventive genius of others and the assurance that the subject of the patent will be dedicated ultimately to the public. . . .(cont.)
"The

13

Markman v. Westview (CAFC 1996)
a zone of uncertainty which enterprise and experimentation may enter only at the risk of infringement claims would discourage invention only a little less than unequivocal foreclosure of the field." [at 390]
"Otherwise,

14

Found indefinite:
least about 160,000" ­ Amgen "aesthetically pleasing" - Datamize claimed compound could not be identified by testing - Morton "means for dispensing" (no corresponding structure found) ­ Default Proof
"at

15

ICU Medical v. Alaris, 558 F.3d 1368 (CAFC 2009)
is entirely proper to consider the function of an invention in seeking to determine the meaning of particular claim language." Indefinite because species did not support generic claim.
"It

16

Oakley v. Sunglass Hut (CAFC 2003)
colored appearance" decided on preliminary injunction "one skilled in the art would interpret the phrase...in light of the specification to require that the maximum differential effect equal or exceed about 5.45%"
"vivid

17

Modine v. ITC (CAFC 1996)
small" no construction was approved by the CAFC because not required definite because of precise dimensions set out in specification
"relatively

18

Haemonentics v. Baxter (CAFC 2010)
"height" (could be measured in several places) Specification led court to identify inconsistent measurement methods with separate claims
"radius"

19

Haemonentics v. Baxter (CAFC 2010)
as here, claims are susceptible to only one reasonable interpretation and that interpretation results in a nonsensical construction of the claim as a whole, the claim must be invalidated." (at 781)
"Where,

20

Haemonentics v. Baxter (CAFC 2010)
argues...[that the construction] would yield an absurdity. Maybe so, but we do not redraft claims to contradict their plain language in order to avoid a nonsensical result." (at 782)
"Haemonentics

21

Indefiniteness
"said user" ­ no longer at issue

22

Indefiniteness
"traffic information"

23

24

25

Indefiniteness
"less than all available traffic information"

26

27

28

Indefiniteness
"representative of"

29

CollegeNet v. XAP (D.Or. 2004)
is also improper to eliminate, ignore, or `read out' a claim limitation from a claim in order to extend a patent to subject matter disclosed, but not claimed."
"It

30

31

32

Specific Term Construction

33

Specific Term Construction
"traffic information"

34

"traffic information"
current speed, frequency, or flow of multiple vehicles traveling along a road as detected by one or more traffic monitors"
"the

regarding traffic conditions, which data can include, but is not limited to, the speed, velocity, motion, density, flow, or frequency of vehicles on a road, and/or other data representative of the movement of vehicles on a road"
"data

35

36

37

38

Specific Term Construction
Device Terms

39

Device Terms
monitor Mobile user station
Traffic

40

Specific Term Construction
"traffic monitor"

41

"traffic monitor"
stationary device capable of determining the current speed, frequency, or flow of multiple vehicles traveling along a road
A

device used to sense, measure, detect, and/or determine vehicular movement and transmit and/or provide a signal representative of vehicular movement
Any

42

43

monitors and mobile user stations are distinct devices
Traffic

44

45

46

Phillips v. AWH Corp. (Fed. Cir. 2005)
main problem with elevating the dictionary to such prominence is that it focuses the inquiry on the abstract meaning of words rather than on the meaning of claim terms within the context of the patent." Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1321.
"[t]he

47

SciMed Life Sys. v. Advanced Cardiovascular Sys., (CAFC 2001)
Watts

described only one method to achieve pipe joint sealing connection
Specification

v. XL Sys. (CAFC 2000)

Wang

character-based protocol described and enabled in patent, bit-mapped display systems excluded from scope of claims
Only

Labs v. America Online (CAFC 1999)

Cultor

v. A.E. Staley Manufacturing (CAFC 2000)

Limited

catalyst
O.I. Toro
Patent

to polydextrose purification process using citric acide

Corp. v. Tekmar (CAFC 1997)

Therefore catheter included only coaxial lumens, not dual or side-by-side lumens

ring interpreted as permanently attached where specification and drawings did not describe or illustrate any other structure
Restriction

v. White Consolidated Indus. (CAFC 1999)

described only non-smooth or conical passage structures

48

Inpro II v. T-Mobile (CAFC 2006)
claims need not be limited to the preferred embodiment, when the invention is more broadly described, neither do the claims enlarge what is patented beyond what the inventor described as the invention." Inpro II, 450 F.3d at 1354-55.
"Although

49

monitors are stationary devices
Traffic

50

51

52

53

54

55

56

monitors must detect current information
Traffic

57

58

59

Specific Term Construction
"mobile user station"

60

"mobile user station"
mobile device, distinct from a traffic monitor, capable of determining and displaying traffic information
A

easily moving or movable device that can transmit data to and/or receive data from the network. The mobile user station may be a cellular phone or other handheld unit, or may be installed within a car
An

61

62

Specific Term Construction
Data terms

63

Data Terms
representative of traffic/traffic information database Vehicular movement Less than all available traffic information/selected portions of said traffic information database Providing...in response
Data

64

Specific Term Construction
"data representative of traffic/traffic information database"

65

"data representative of traffic/traffic information database"
current speed, frequency, or flow of multiple vehicles traveling along a road
The

construction needed, or "a collection of traffic information"
No

66

67

Specific Term Construction
"vehicular movement"

68

"vehicular movement"
current speed, frequency, or flow of multiple vehicles travling along a road as detected by one or more traffic monitors.
The

velocity, speed, position, and/or change in position of a vehicle.
The

69

70

Specific Term Construction
"less than all available traffic information"/"selected portions of said traffic information database"

71

"less than all available traffic information"
be defined from the specification
Cannot

computer system may send traffic information corresponding to only some of the traffic monitors
The

72

73

74

"selected portions of said traffic information database"
. .a subset of which is selected by the commuter
.

data from the map database and certain data from the traffic information database are transmitted to the mobile user station
Certain

75

76

Specific Term Construction
"providing...in response"

77

"providing...in response to"
response to a commuter's request, providing relevant traffic information for display by the mobile user station to minimize manipulation by the commuter while driving, the request and the response must occur simultaneously
In

computer system supplies traffic information in response to a request from a mobile user station The computer system, rather than only arbitrarily sending traffic information representative of said signals transmitted by said traffic monitors, is capable of sending traffic information representative of said signals transmitted by said traffic monitors to a mobile user station as a result of the mobile user station sending a request for traffic information to the computer system.
The

78

79

Default Proof Credit v. Home Depot
Court found indefinite "If one employs means-plusfunction language in a claim, one must set forth in the specification an adequate disclosure showing what is meant by that language." [at 1298]
District

80

Haemonentics v. Baxter (CAFC 2010)
as here, claims are susceptible to only one reasonable interpretation and that interpretation results in a nonsensical construction of the claim as a whole, the claim must be invalidated." (at 781)
"Where,

81

Haemonentics v. Baxter (CAFC 2010)
argues...[that the construction] would yield an absurdity. Maybe so, but we do not redraft claims to contradict their plain language in order to avoid a nonsensical result." (at 782)
"Haemonentics

82

83

84