GeoTag Inc v. The Western Union Company et al

Filing 790

CLAIM CONSTRUCTION MEMORANDUM AND ORDER - The Court adopts the constructions set forth in this opinion for the disputed terms of the patent-in-suit. Any reference to claim construction proceedings is limited to informing the jury of the definitions adopted by the Court. Signed by Magistrate Judge Roy S. Payne on 11/7/13. (ehs, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
MARSHALL DIVISION
GEOTAG INC.,
v.
STARBUCKS CORP., et al.
___________________________________
GEOTAG INC.,
v.
THE WESTERN UNION CO., et al.
___________________________________
GEOTAG INC.,
v.
THE BOEING CO., et al.

§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§

CASE NO. 2:10-CV-572-MHS-RSP

CASE NO. 2:10-CV-574-MHS-RSP

CASE NO. 2:13-CV-183-MHS-RSP

CLAIM CONSTRUCTION
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
On September 17, 2013, the Court held a hearing to determine the proper construction of
the disputed claim terms in United States Patent No. 5,930,474. After considering the arguments
made by the parties at the hearing, in the parties’ original claim construction briefing (Dkt. Nos.
501, 508, and 512),1 and in the parties’ supplemental claim construction briefing (Dkt. Nos. 597
and 600), the Court issues this Claim Construction Memorandum and Order.

1

Citations to documents (such as the parties’ briefs and exhibits) in this Claim Construction
Memorandum and Order shall refer to the page numbers of the original documents rather than
the page numbers assigned by the Court’s electronic docket. Also, citations to docket numbers
shall be to Civil Action No. 2:10-CV-572 unless otherwise indicated.
-1-

Table of Contents
BACKGROUND ........................................................................................................................... 3 
LEGAL PRINCIPLES ................................................................................................................. 4 
THE PARTIES’ STIPULATED TERMS................................................................................... 6 
CONSTRUCTION OF DISPUTED TERMS ............................................................................. 7 
A. Frontier Terms ...................................................................................................................... 7 
B. “dynamically replicated” and “hierarchy of geographical areas” ....................................... 11 
C. Related Terms ..................................................................................................................... 27 
CONCLUSION ........................................................................................................................... 31 
APPENDIX A .............................................................................................................................. 32 

-2-

BACKGROUND
Plaintiff brings suit alleging infringement of United States Patent No. 5,930,474 (“the
’474 Patent”), titled “Internet Organizer for Accessing Geographically and Topically Diverse
Information.” The ’474 Patent issued on July 27, 1999, and bears a filing date of January 31,
1996. The Abstract of the ’474 Patent states:
A software interface organizes information predicated upon the geographical area
of the resources about which the information is desired. A user is presented with
a “viewpoint” map which may comprise, for example, an actual visually
displayed map of a selected geographical area, or text information which pertains
to the resources associated with the selected geographical area. A geography
database, a local content database and a yellow pages database are provided to
allow the user to obtain information at different levels. The geography database
allows the user to browse through different geographic areas of [sic] which are
ordered hierarchically, while the local content database includes information
about general goods and services available within a given geographic location and
the yellow pages database includes information about specific goods and services
in the geographic location. Thus, the user is provided with a means whereby
information which is associated with particular geographic locations can be
readily accessed.
The ’474 Patent has previously been construed three times: Geomas (Int’l) Ltd., et al. v.
Idearc Media Services-West, Inc., No. 2:06-CV-475 (E.D. Tex. Nov. 20, 2008) (Everingham, J.),
ECF No. 110 (“Geomas”), GeoTag Inc. v. Frontier Commc’ns Corp., et al., No. 2:10-CV-265
(E.D. Tex. Feb. 25, 2013) (Gilstrap, J.), ECF No. 472 (“Frontier”), and Microsoft Corp., et al. v.
GeoTag Inc., No. 1:11-CV-175 (D. Del. May 3, 2013) (Andrews, J.), ECF No. 284
(“Microsoft”).
At the time the parties filed their original claim construction briefing, the abovecaptioned cases (together with other cases) were consolidated with Frontier for purposes of
claim construction.2 See First Amended Scheduling and Discovery Order at 17 & 21-22,

2

Civil Action No. 2:13-CV-183 was created on February 27, 2013 by the severance of
Defendant The Boeing Co. from Civil Action No. 2:10-CV-575, which had been consolidated
-3-

Frontier (E.D. Tex. August 31, 2012), ECF No. 305. Subsequently, Frontier and numerous
related cases other than the above-captioned cases3 were transferred to a different district judge
prior to the February 12, 2013 claim construction hearing in Frontier. General Order No. 13-3 at
App’x C, Frontier (E.D. Tex. Jan. 14, 2013), ECF No. 374. The above-captioned cases were
then set for a later claim construction hearing. Defendants in the above-captioned cases filed an
unopposed motion for leave to submit supplemental claim construction briefing, which the Court
permitted with certain page limitations. (Dkt. No. 583; filed July 31, 2013; Dkt. No. 595, filed
August 21, 2013).
LEGAL PRINCIPLES
“It is a ‘bedrock principle’ of patent law that ‘the claims of a patent define the invention
to which the patentee is entitled the right to exclude.’” Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303,
1312 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc) (quoting Innova/Pure Water Inc. v. Safari Water Filtration Sys.,
Inc., 381 F.3d 1111, 1115 (Fed. Cir. 2004)). To determine the meaning of the claims, courts start
by considering the intrinsic evidence. See id. at 1313; C.R. Bard, Inc. v. U.S. Surgical Corp.,
388 F.3d 858, 861 (Fed. Cir. 2004); Bell Atl. Network Servs., Inc. v. Covad Commc’ns Group,
Inc., 262 F.3d 1258, 1267 (Fed. Cir. 2001). The intrinsic evidence includes the claims
themselves, the specification, and the prosecution history. See Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1314;
C.R. Bard, 388 F.3d at 861. Courts give claim terms their ordinary and accustomed meaning as
understood by one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention in the context of the
with Frontier. See Order, GeoTag Inc. v. The Boeing Co., No. 2:13-CV-183 (E.D. Tex. February
27, 2013), ECF No. 1.
3

Civil Action No. 2:13-CV-183 was created (supra n.2) shortly after the Frontier claim
construction ruling was signed on February 25, 2013. Frontier was entered in such a manner
that it was not entered in Civil Action No. 2:13-CV-183. See Order of Recusal, GeoTag Inc. v.
Royal Purple, Inc., No. 2:10-CV-575 (E.D. Tex. February 25, 2013), ECF No. 609, vacated,
Order, February 27, 2013, ECF No. 612.
-4-

entire patent. Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1312-13; Alloc, Inc. v. Int’l Trade Comm’n, 342 F.3d 1361,
1368 (Fed. Cir. 2003).
The claims themselves provide substantial guidance in determining the meaning of
particular claim terms. Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1314. First, a term’s context in the asserted claim
can be very instructive. Id. Other asserted or unasserted claims can aid in determining the
claim’s meaning because claim terms are typically used consistently throughout the patent. Id.
Differences among the claim terms can also assist in understanding a term’s meaning. Id. For
example, when a dependent claim adds a limitation to an independent claim, it is presumed that
the independent claim does not include the limitation. Id. at 1314-15.
“[C]laims ‘must be read in view of the specification, of which they are a part.’” Id.
(quoting Markman v. Westview Instruments, Inc., 52 F.3d 967, 979 (Fed. Cir. 1995) (en banc)).
“[T]he specification ‘is always highly relevant to the claim construction analysis. Usually, it is
dispositive; it is the single best guide to the meaning of a disputed term.’” Id. (quoting Vitronics
Corp. v. Conceptronic, Inc., 90 F.3d 1576, 1582 (Fed. Cir. 1996)); Teleflex, Inc. v. Ficosa N. Am.
Corp., 299 F.3d 1313, 1325 (Fed. Cir. 2002). This is true because a patentee may define his own
terms, give a claim term a different meaning than the term would otherwise possess, or disclaim
or disavow the claim scope. Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1316. In these situations, the inventor’s
lexicography governs. Id. The specification may also resolve the meaning of ambiguous claim
terms “where the ordinary and accustomed meaning of the words used in the claims lack
sufficient clarity to permit the scope of the claim to be ascertained from the words alone.”
Teleflex, 299 F.3d at 1325. But, “[a]lthough the specification may aid the court in interpreting
the meaning of disputed claim language, particular embodiments and examples appearing in the
specification will not generally be read into the claims.” Comark Commc’ns, Inc. v. Harris

-5-

Corp., 156 F.3d 1182, 1187 (Fed. Cir. 1998) (quoting Constant v. Advanced Micro-Devices, Inc.,
848 F.2d 1560, 1571 (Fed. Cir. 1988)); accord Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1323.
The prosecution history is another tool to supply the proper context for claim
construction because a patent applicant may also define a term in prosecuting the patent. Home
Diagnostics, Inc., v. Lifescan, Inc., 381 F.3d 1352, 1356 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (“As in the case of the
specification, a patent applicant may define a term in prosecuting a patent.”). “[T]he prosecution
history (or file wrapper) limits the interpretation of claims so as to exclude any interpretation that
may have been disclaimed or disavowed during prosecution in order to obtain claim allowance.”
Standard Oil Co. v. Am. Cyanamid Co., 774 F.2d 448, 452 (Fed. Cir. 1985).
Although extrinsic evidence can be useful, it is “less significant than the intrinsic record
in determining the legally operative meaning of claim language.” Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1317
(quoting C.R. Bard, 388 F.3d at 862). Technical dictionaries and treatises may help a court
understand the underlying technology and the manner in which one skilled in the art might use
claim terms, but technical dictionaries and treatises may provide definitions that are too broad or
may not be indicative of how the term is used in the patent. Id. at 1318. Similarly, expert
testimony may aid a court in understanding the underlying technology and determining the
particular meaning of a term in the pertinent field, but an expert’s conclusory, unsupported
assertions as to a term’s definition are entirely unhelpful to a court. Id. Generally, extrinsic
evidence is “less reliable than the patent and its prosecution history in determining how to read
claim terms.” Id.
THE PARTIES’ STIPULATED TERMS
For several terms that the parties briefed as disputed terms, the parties have reached
agreement that plain and ordinary meaning should apply or that no separate construction is
necessary (apart from the construction of constituent terms). The Parties’ agreements are evident
-6-

in the parties’ Revised P.R. 4-5(d) Joint Claim Construction Chart (Dkt. No. 601, filed
September 16, 2013) (“JCCC”) and are set forth separately in Appendix A to this Claim
Construction Memorandum and Order.
CONSTRUCTION OF DISPUTED TERMS
A. Frontier Terms
Before the Court are two categories of claim terms for construction: 1) terms argued by
the parties in their supplemental briefing and at the September 17, 2013 claim construction
hearing (addressed in section B, below); and 2) terms that were not addressed in either the
supplemental briefing or at the hearing, which were only argued in the parties original briefing.
(Compare Dkt. Nos. 597 & 600 with Dkt. Nos. 501, 508, 512 & 601). For the second category
of terms, Plaintiff and Defendants rested on their original claim construction briefing—the same
briefing that was before the Frontier court—and Plaintiff specifically adopted the constructions
and analysis set forth in Frontier to the extent that Plaintiff’s original proposed constructions and
arguments were inconsistent with Frontier. (See Dkt. No. 597 at 1 n.3; Dkt. No. 600 at 1). As to
these terms, the Court has reviewed the parties’ original briefing and the analysis set forth in
Frontier and finds no reason to depart from the constructions reached in Frontier. The Court
therefore hereby adopts those constructions, as set forth in the following chart, for the same
reasons set forth in Frontier:

-7-

“database” (Claims 1, 20, 26 & 31)
Defendants’ Proposal4

Court’s Construction

“a data structure of ordered entries separate
from the user’s browser that is accessed by
the search engine to search geographically
and topically”

“a collection of information, or of data, that is
organized to facilitate retrieval of selected
information or data”

“entry” (Claims 1, 20 & 31)
Defendants’ Proposal

Court’s Construction

“a listing contained in the database that
includes multiple data records”

“a listing that is contained in the database and
that includes one or more fields”

“entries” (Claims 1, 20 & 31)
Defendants’ Proposal

Court’s Construction

“a listing contained in the database that
includes multiple data records”

“listings that are contained in the database and
that each include one or more fields”

“data record” (Claims 18, 24, 25, 36 & 38)
Defendants’ Proposal

Court’s Construction

“one or more fields within an entry (e.g.,
phone number, address)”

“a listing that is contained in the database and
that includes one or more fields”

4

Because Plaintiff has adopted the Frontier constructions, this chart shows only Defendants’
proposed constructions.
-8-

“geographical search area” (Claims 1, 20 & 31)
Defendants’ Proposal

Court’s Construction

“the particular geographical area within the
database selected by the search engine
whose entries are to be searched”

“the particular selected geographical area
within the database for which the associated
data records in the database are to be
searched”

“organizing a database of on-line information into a plurality of geographical areas”
(Claim 31)
Defendants’ Proposal

Court’s Construction

“at the time the database is being
organized, ordering entries of on-line
information into geographic areas within
the database”

Plain meaning in the context of the Court’s
constructions of constituent terms
Defendants’ proposal of “at the time the
database is being organized” is hereby
expressly rejected.

“search engine” (Claims 1, 20 & 31)
Defendants’ Proposal

Court’s Construction

No construction required

“device or application that receives search
requests and fulfills the received requests
through interaction with a database”

“on-line information” (Claims 1 & 31)
Defendants’ Proposal

Court’s Construction

“information that is remotely accessible
over a network”

“information that is accessible over a computer
network”

-9-

“organizer” (Claim 1)
Defendants’ Proposal

Court’s Construction

“a network interface (comprising a
database and a search engine) that
organizes ‘on-line information’ into
categorized listings to make finding
information easier”

“device or application configured to receive
search requests, together with a database and a
search engine in communication with the
database”

“topic” (Claims 1, 18, 20, 24, 31, 34, 36, 37 & 38)
Defendants’ Proposal

Court’s Construction

“an independent, searchable category of
related goods or services, as distinguished
from geographic information and the
entries or data records associated with that
category”

Plain meaning
Defendants’ argument that a “topic” cannot be
a phone number or a street address is hereby
expressly rejected. See Frontier at 61.

“entries corresponding to each [one] of said hierarchy of geographical area[s] is further
organized into topics” (Claims 1 & 20)
Defendants’ Proposal

Court’s Construction

“after the database is geographically
ordered, further ordering the database
entries for each particular geographic area
into topics that are associated with that
particular geographic area (as distinguished
from geographically differentiated listings
for the same topic)”

“entries associated with a geographical area in
the hierarchy of geographical areas are further
organized to permit selected data to be
retrieved according to topics”
Defendants’ proposal of an order of steps is
hereby expressly rejected.

- 10 -

“organizing said entries corresponding to said plurality of geographical areas into one or
more topics” (Claim 31)
Defendants’ Proposal

Court’s Construction

“after the database is geographically
ordered, further ordering the database
entries for each particular geographic area
into topics that are associated with that
particular geographic area (as distinguished
from geographically differentiated listings
for the same topic)”

“organizing said entries corresponding to one
or more geographical areas to further permit
selected data to be retrieved according to one or
more topics”
Defendants’ proposal of an order of steps is
hereby expressly rejected.

Geomas, Frontier, and Microsoft addressed the remaining disputed terms—the terms that
were argued in the supplemental briefing and at the hearing—in distinct groups. At the
September 17, 2013 hearing, however, the parties’ oral arguments demonstrated significant
overlap among the remaining disputed terms. The Court, therefore, first addresses the two core
disputed terms—“dynamically replicated” and “hierarchy of geographical areas”—as a single
group and then separately addresses the related disputed terms, as set forth below.
B. “dynamically replicated” and “hierarchy of geographical areas”
“dynamically replicated” (Claims 1 & 20)
Plaintiff’s Proposed Construction
(Frontier Construction)

Defendants’ Proposed Construction

“automatically copied or inherited, within the
database, at the time needed rather than at a
time decided or established in advance”

“automatically inheriting, within the database,
at the time of the search”

- 11 -

“hierarchy of geographical areas” (Claims 1, 4 & 20)
Plaintiff’s Proposed Construction
(Frontier Construction)

Defendants’ Proposed Construction

“an arrangement of related information or data,
ordered from broader geographical categories
to narrower geographical categories”

“related geographical areas, ordered such that
there are parent geographic areas and child
geographic areas”

JCCC at 2 & 4. Plaintiff proposes the constructions that the Court reached in Frontier. See
Frontier at 26 & 29.
(1) The Parties’ Positions
(a) “dynamically replicated”
Because the original claim construction briefing in the above-captioned cases is the same
briefing that was before the Court in Frontier, the Court hereby incorporates by reference the
Frontier summary of Defendants’ arguments (Plaintiff has adopted the Frontier analysis, see
Dkt. No. 600 at 1). See Frontier at 20-22. Of particular note, Defendants originally proposed
construing “dynamically replicated” to mean “automatically copying within the database at the
time of a search rather than at a time established in advance,” and Frontier adopted the word
“copying” as part of its construction. (Dkt. No. 508 at 22) (emphasis added); Frontier at 26.
In their supplemental brief, Defendants modified their proposal for “dynamically
replicated” in two major ways: by changing “copying” to “inheriting” and by shortening “at the
time of a search rather than at a time established in advance” to “at the time of the search.”
(Compare Dkt. No. 508 at 22 with Dkt. No. 597 at 4).
Plaintiff has responded by noting Defendants’ change of position on “copying” and by
arguing that Frontier rejected Defendants’ “at the time of the search” proposal. (Dkt. No. 600 at
4).
- 12 -

At the September 17, 2013 hearing, Defendants stated that although they had originally
proposed “copying,” they now feel that the word “copying” creates confusion. Defendants
highlighted prosecution history in which the examiner wrote “Synonyms: dynamic replication =
automatic inheritance = parent-child = inheriting attributes.” (Dkt. No. 508, Ex. G, December 9,
1998 Search Request Form). Defendants explained that whereas “inheriting” requires a vertical,
“lineage” relationship, “copying” could be merely from one file to any other file. Defendants
further noted that the ’474 Patent does not use the word “copying.”
As to their proposal of “at the time of the search,” Defendants emphasized that Plaintiff’s
briefing in the Geomas case referred to dynamic replication as being performed “by the search
engine at the time of a search.” (Id., Ex. S, June 6, 2008 Plaintiffs’ Opening Claim Construction
Brief at 25). Defendants also argued that the phrase “at the time needed” is overbroad because it
might be read to refer to any type of “need,” not necessarily a need arising in connection with a
search.
Plaintiff responded that “inheriting” is similar to “copying,” as Defendants originally
argued and as the Frontier defendants had argued during the Frontier claim construction hearing.
See February 12, 2013 Hr’g Tr. at 75:4-20, Frontier , ECF No. 461 (quoted in subsection (2)(b),
below). Plaintiff concluded that the term “dynamically replicated” does not require the vertical,
“lineage” relationship that Defendants suggested at the September 17, 2013 hearing.
As to Defendants’ proposal of “at the time of the search,” Plaintiff responded that there
might be some delay between a user clicking a search button and a search of the database
actually being performed. Plaintiff expressed similar concerns at the Frontier hearing. See id. at
53:11-54:5. Plaintiff also argued that although some of the claims recite a search, Claim 31 does

- 13 -

not. Nonetheless, Plaintiff acknowledged that dynamic replication occurs at the time of
generating a response to a search request.
Defendants replied that all of the asserted claims, including Claim 31, require a search.
Defendants also noted that in Geomas, both sides included the phrase “at the time needed” as
part of their proposed constructions because they agreed that dynamic replication does not refer
to information generated at the time of database creation. See Geomas at 22. Finally,
Defendants argued that the doctrine of claim differentiation should not be applied to Claim 32,
which recites “[t]he method of claim 31 wherein said geographical areas are hierarchically
organized,” because the specification does not disclose anything other than a hierarchy.
(b) “hierarchy of geographical areas”
Because the original claim construction briefing in the above-captioned cases is the same
briefing that was before the Court in Frontier, the Court hereby incorporates by reference the
Frontier summary of Defendants’ arguments (Plaintiff has adopted the Frontier analysis, see
Dkt. No. 600 at 1). See Frontier at 27.
Defendants originally proposed construing “hierarchy of geographical areas” to mean
“related geographical areas, ordered such that broader geographic areas encompass narrower
geographic areas.” (Dkt. No. 508 at 32) (emphasis added). In their supplemental briefing,
Defendants acknowledge that Geomas, Frontier, and Microsoft all rejected proposals of an
“encompassing” limitation. (Dkt. No. 597 at 2); Geomas at 8-10; Frontier at 29; Microsoft at 56. Defendants nonetheless argue that the specification and the prosecution history are consistent
with requiring a “parent-child relationship.” (Dkt. No. 597 at 2-3). Defendants cite Microsoft,
which construed a term including “hierarchy of geographical areas” so as to require “parent
geographic areas and child geographic areas.” (Id. at 1); Microsoft at 10.

- 14 -

Plaintiff responds that Geomas rejected a proposal to require such a “parent-child”
relationship, and Plaintiff submits that Frontier adopted the conclusions reached in Geomas on
this disputed term. (Dkt. No. 600 at 2 (citing Geomas at 8 & Frontier at 29)). Plaintiff also
argues that Defendants have failed to identify any disclaimer by the patentee during prosecution.
(Dkt. No. 600 at 3). Finally, Plaintiff notes that whereas Claim 20 recites a “predetermine[d]
hierarchy of geographical areas,” no “predetermined” requirement appears in Claim 1. (Id. at 23).
At the September 17, 2013 hearing, Defendants argued that neither Geomas nor Frontier
rejected requiring a parent-child relationship because Geomas rejected requiring a “tree-like”
structure (“where parents can have multiple children, but each child can only have one parent,”
Geomas at 8-9) and Frontier rejected requiring that broader geographic areas “encompass”
narrower geographic areas (Frontier at 26). Defendants also noted that they are not arguing for
any finding of prosecution history disclaimer but rather are citing the examiner’s statements as
evidence of the understanding of a person of ordinary skill in the art, just as Microsoft did. See
Microsoft at 9.
Plaintiff responded that if the Court includes the words “parent” and “child” in its
constructions, the jury would likely read those words too narrowly, such as to mean that a
“child” can have only one parent or perhaps no more than two parents. Plaintiff acknowledged
that there would “most likely” be some overlap and that the term “hierarchy” indeed requires
some relationship, but upon inquiry by the Court, Plaintiff could not articulate any such
relationship that would not require overlap. Nonetheless, Plaintiff maintained that broader
geographical areas need not encompass narrower geographical areas, even partially.

- 15 -

(2) Analysis
The present disputes can largely be traced back to the amendments that followed an
interview between the patentee and the examiner during prosecution of the ’474 Patent. The
original application claims did not contain any dynamic replication terms and were rejected as
unpatentable over prior art. (Dkt. No. 508, Ex. D, February 10, 1998 Office Action at 3). In a
subsequent examiner interview, the patentee and the examiner agreed that “[t]he dynamic
replication of an entry in narrow geographical area would overcome the prior art of record.” (Id.,
Ex. F, July 28, 1998 Interview Summary). The patentee then amended the claims by adding the
dynamic replication limitations. (Id., Ex. H, August 7, 1998 Response to Office Acton).
(a) “within the database”
The parties agree that the Court’s construction of “dynamically replicated” and related
terms should include “within the database.” (Dkt. No. 597 at 4; Dkt. No. 600 at 4); see Microsoft
at 15 (“Claim 1 clearly states that an entry is ‘dynamically replicated’ within the database in
connection with a search.”) (emphasis added).
(b) “copying”
On one hand, Microsoft expressly rejected a proposal to include “copying” in the
construction of “dynamically replicating”:
GeoTag does not point to any intrinsic evidence justifying the inclusion of the
“copying” limitation. Further “copying” is a well-known term used in the art of
computer science, and if the patentee had intended his invention to be understood
as having this function he could have easily done so by using this word
somewhere in the patent.
Microsoft at 14-15.
On the other hand, in the above-captioned cases, Defendants originally proposed that this
Court adopt the word “copying” instead of “inheriting,” arguing as follows:

- 16 -

Since the meanings are identical, and since “copying” is simpler for the fact finder
to understand and accurately reflects the definition of “replicating,” Defendants’
construction uses “automatically copying.” And although, as GeoTag notes, the
words “automatically inherited” are used in the specification, this language
actually describes the way that data is stored in the geography database and is
unrelated to dynamic replication.
(Dkt. No. 508 at 26) (footnotes omitted); (id. at 26 n.95 (“In the context of the invention,
Defendants’ construction of the larger dynamic replication phrases as discussed below, which
requires copying from a larger/broader geographic area into an encompassed smaller/narrower
geographic area, has the same meaning as inheriting.”)). The Frontier defendants, relying upon
this same original claim construction briefing, presented similar arguments during the
February 12, 2013 claim construction hearing in Frontier:
. . . Defendants have proposed that instead of using automatically copying or
inheriting, that we just use automatically copying. And why we’ve done that is
because in the context of these claims, automatically copying has exactly the
same meaning as automatically inheriting, because replicating means producing a
replica. That means producing a copy. And that’s all the claims talk about, an
entry in the database that is associated with a broader geographical area is
dynamically replicated into another geographical area in the database. And that is
the same as replicating that entry into the other area in the database, and that is
exactly what copying means.
So the Defendants felt that -- why use the inheritance which nobody really knows
exactly what it means when copying means exactly the same thing as inheritance
in this context?
See February 12, 2013 Hr’g Tr. at 75:4-20, Frontier, ECF No. 461.
Defendants have now reversed course, arguing that “[t]he addition of ‘copying or’ to this
part of the construction introduces confusion and is not supported by the intrinsic evidence.”
(Dkt. No. 597 at 4). On balance, Defendants have not sufficiently justified why the Court should
change “copying”—a word that they themselves originally proposed the Court adopt and which
the Court in Frontier indeed adopted—to “inheriting.”
(c) “inheriting”
- 17 -

As to the significance of “inheriting,” Defendants at the September 17, 2013 hearing
urged that dynamic replication occurs through a vertical, “lineage” relationship, and as to the
“hierarchy” terms, Defendants argued that a “parent-child relationship” is what enables dynamic
replication to occur through a “lineage.” Defendants also cited the examiner’s Search Request
Form (quoted in subsection (1)(a), above) as to both the dynamic replication terms and the
hierarchy terms. (See Defs.’ September 17, 2013 Hr’g Slides 6 & 25; see also Dkt. No. 597 at 2
n.10 & 4 n.20).
On balance, the parties’ dispute regarding Defendants’ proposed parent-child relationship
is better addressed in the context of the “hierarchy” terms, below, as was done in Microsoft. See
Microsoft at 6-10, esp. at 6-7 (“The ‘dynamic replication’ phrases are the second group of
disputed terms and are not construed in this section, but that group’s meaning has ramifications
for the ‘hierarchy’ phrases’ construction. . . . ‘Automatic inheritance’ requires that ‘hierarchy’ be
construed according to the ‘parent-child relationship.’”).
(d) “at the time needed rather than at a time decided or established in advance”
Frontier noted that “as agreed upon in Geomas and as is evident from the above-quoted
portions of the specification [(’474 Patent at 2:59-62, 17:58-64, 19:29-63 & 25:59-26:8)], the
significance of the constituent term ‘dynamically’ is that entries are replicated ‘at the time the
entry is needed, rather than at a time that is decided or established in advance.’” Frontier at 25
(quoting Geomas at 22-23).
Although incidental delays may occur between a user requesting a search, the search
being performed, and the search results being provided to the user (see, e.g., ’474 Patent at
22:39-54), the phrase “at the time needed” refers to the time of generating a response to a search
request. Plaintiff itself expressed a similar understanding during the Frontier hearing:

- 18 -

[B]riefly to address the at the time needed versus at the time of the search,
when -- when you’re dealing with computers, it’s sometimes very difficult to
decide what is the time of something actually occurring, it may occur over a series
of steps, it may occur at slightly different times, so what GeoTag believes the
proper construction should be is that it’s replicated when it’s needed, not at the
time -- not the -- which may be considered at the time of the search, but it
shouldn’t be limited to a specific step where somebody says, okay, I hit the
search, five milliseconds later the dynamically replicating occurred, and,
therefore, it’s not at the time of the search because it’s a short time after.
What we’re saying is that you’re searching and the result is -- at the time you need
the information, it’s provided to you. And that should be the construction.
THE COURT: It’s quickly after?
[Plaintiff’s counsel]: Quickly after, yes.
February 12, 2013 Hr’g Tr. at 53:11-54:5, Frontier, ECF No. 461.
On balance, the construction of “dynamically replicated” should include the phrase “at
the time needed rather than at a time decided or established in advance,” but the parties must
abide by their apparent mutual understanding that “at the time needed” refers to a need that arises
while generating a response to a search request.
Plaintiff has not agreed, however, that all of the claims require a search. In particular,
Plaintiff argued at the September 17, 2013 hearing that Claim 31 does not require a search.
Claim 31 recites:
31. A method for locating on line information comprising the steps of:
organizing a database of on-line information into a plurality of
geographical areas, said geographical areas having a plurality of entries associated
therewith;
organizing said entries corresponding to said plurality of geographical
areas into one or [m]ore topics;
directing a search engine executing in a computer to select one or more of
said geographical areas so as to select a geographical search area;
dynamically replicating an entry from [a] broader geographical area into
said geographical search area; and
displaying said topics associated with sa[i]d geographical search area.

- 19 -

On balance, Claim 31 contemplates a search because Claim 31 recites “locating on line
information” by “directing a search engine . . . to select a geographical search area,”
“dynamically replicating,” and “displaying . . . topics.” Thus, for Claim 31 as for the other
claims, the parties must abide by their apparent mutual understanding that “at the time needed”
refers to a need that arises while generating a response to a search request, as discussed above.
(e) “hierarchy of geographical areas”
Frontier considered a proposal to construe “hierarchy of geographical areas” to mean
“related geographical areas, ordered such that broader geographic areas encompass narrower
geographic areas.” Frontier at 26 (emphasis added). Frontier rejected that proposal and noted
the rejection of a similar proposal in Geomas:
In Geomas, the parties disputed whether the “hierarchy” terms required “treelike” structures wherein “parents can have multiple children, but each child can
only have one parent.” Geomas at 8-9. The specification discloses:
As used herein, a “parent” entry is an entry (e.g., geographic or
topical) which encompasses one or more children entries within
the geographic or topical hierarchy, and a “child” entry is an entry
which is encompassed by a parent entry within the geographical or
topical hierarchy.
(‘474 Patent at 12:28-32.) Geomas concluded that limiting the claims to this
preferred embodiment would be improper, but the Court in Geomas nonetheless
noted that there must be some relationship between entries. Geomas at 10.
On balance, having considered the briefing and oral argument presented in the
present case, the Court reaches the same conclusions reached in Geomas . . . .
Frontier at 29.
In Microsoft, Google Inc. proposed that broader areas “encompass” narrower areas.
Microsoft at 3-4. Microsoft Corp. proposed “that there are parent geographic areas and child
geographic areas.” Id. at 4. Microsoft rejected any “encompassing” requirement but construed
the term “a database of information organized into a hierarchy of geographical areas wherein
- 20 -

entries [corresponding] to each one of said [hierarchy of] geographical areas is further organized
into topics” to mean “a database of information organized into interrelated geographic areas
such that there are parent geographic areas and child geographic areas, wherein the records
associated with a geographic area are further organized into topics.” Id. at 5-6 & 10 (emphasis
added).
Because Defendants are here proposing the parent-child relationship set forth by
Microsoft, in which Microsoft specifically found that a child need not be encompassed by a
parent, the parent-child relationship proposed here by Defendants is not an encompassing
relationship. Id. at 5-6.
As to what the parent-child relationship is, however, Microsoft explained the relationship
between “parent” and “child” only with reference to “automatic inheritance,” disclosures in the
specification regarding “parent” entries, and the examiner’s Search Request Form. Id. at 7-9
(quoting ’474 Patent at 19:29-39 (quoted below); (Dkt. No. 508, Ex. G, December 9, 1998
Search Request Form (“Synonyms: dynamic replication = automatic inheritance = parent-child =
inheriting attributes”)). The specification uses the terms “parent” and “child” as follows:
Once these namekeys have been established, they should not be changed. This is
because subentries contain a reference to these names as their parent hierarchy so
that to change a namekey for one location would require changing the namekey
for all locations contained in the hierarchy beneath the location which has its
namekey changed.
The data contained within the geographic database 210 also includes reference
fields 1305 which include a reference city, reference region, reference state,
province or territory, reference country, reference continent, and reference world
values. These values are the parentage name keys related to the current entry, and
provide the key to displaying related entries to the internet user, and are
automatically inherited from the parent entry. These reference values are used to
retrace the path back through the geographic hierarchy when the user wishes to
return to a related (e.g., parent) location display screen.
***
- 21 -

The data stored within the geographic database 210 further includes label fields
1315 which include text fields shown to the user as folder titles (i.e., listed areas
under the selected geographic area) for each of the parent geographic entries
related to the current entry. Text fields are included for cities, regions, states,
provinces or territories, countries, or continents. For example, if the user selects
the state of California as the current entry, then the names of the parent
geographic areas related to the state of California (i.e., the United States of
America, North America, and the World) will be taken from the label field 1315
and displayed in the HTML document. In addition, the children entries related to
the state of California are then inserted beneath the “California” entry by the
geographical search engine 315 based upon the value of the Dbview parameter, as
will be discussed in greater detail below. The label field 1315 is automatically
inherited from the parent entry, and the values within the label field 1315 should
not be changed.
’474 Patent at 19:23-63 (emphasis added); see id. at 12:28-32 (reproduced above as quoted by
Frontier).
These disclosures in the specification shed little light on the contours of a parent-child
relationship, particularly because Defendants agree that their current proposals of “parent” and
“child” do not limit a child to having only one parent. At the September 17, 2013 hearing, the
Court questioned Defendants’ counsel regarding the nature of the proposed “parent-child”
relationship. In particular, the Court inquired what Defendants’ proposal of “parent” and “child”
means if not that a child can have only one parent.
Defendants responded that whereas any two geographic areas in a database might have
some conceivable “relationship” with one another, the “parent-child” relationship required by the
hierarchy terms is a specific link through which dynamic replication can occur. Yet, Defendants’
proposal for “dynamically replicated” includes “inheriting,” which Defendants define in terms of
a parent-child relationship. (Dkt. No. 597 at 2 (“dynamic replication requires a parent-child
relationship”)); (see id. at 3 (citing Microsoft at 7 (discussing “[t]he necessity of the ‘parent-child
relationship’ to ‘automatic inheritance’”))).

- 22 -

Thus, Defendants rely upon their “inheriting” proposals for the dynamic replication terms
to explain the parent-child relationship purportedly required by the hierarchy terms and, in turn,
Defendants rely upon those same parent-child proposals to define “inheriting.” In other words,
by limiting their explanations to the phrases that appear in the examiner’s Search Request Form,
Defendants are attempting to define these various disputed concepts with reference to one
another. (Dkt. No. 508, Ex. G, December 9, 1998 Search Request Form (“Synonyms: dynamic
replication = automatic inheritance = parent-child = inheriting attributes”)). Such circularity is
disfavored and fails to adequately resolve the parties’ disputes. See ACTV, Inc. v. Walt Disney
Co., 346 F.3d 1082, 1086, 1090 (Fed. Cir. 2003) (rejecting district court construction of the term
“Internet address” as meaning “a particular host on the Internet, specified by a uniform resource
locator that is unique to that host” because district court construed “uniform resource locator” to
mean “the complete address of a site on the Internet specifying both a protocol type and a
resource location”) (emphasis added).
Defendants’ overarching concern appears to be that the Frontier constructions could be
read such that the areas in a “hierarchy” need not have any relationship with one another (aside
from there being relatively larger and smaller areas so that areas can be “broader” and
“narrower” than one another). Defendants’ concern can be addressed without employing
circularity and without infusing the constructions with the vague “parent-child relationship” for
which Defendants have been unable to articulate any specific contours.
On balance, the claims require overlap between areas in a hierarchy. Although the
Frontier constructions for the “hierarchy” terms do not expressly require overlap, Frontier
reached its construction in the context of parties disputing whether a narrower geographic area
must be completely encompassed by a broader geographic area or could instead be only partially

- 23 -

encompassed. See Frontier at 26, 27 & 29; see also Dkt. No. 461, 2/12/2013 Hr’g Tr. at 12:1-7,
12:24-13:10, 13:25-14:7, 17:4-21:18, 25:12-31:12, 32:5-33:19, 42:21-23 & 60:15-61:9. Thus,
reading Frontier in the context of the parties’ arguments in that case, requiring overlap is not
inconsistent with the conclusions reached in Frontier.
At the September 17, 2013 hearing, Plaintiff acknowledged that some relationship must
exist and stated that there would “most likely” be some overlap. Upon inquiry by the Court,
Plaintiff was unable to articulate any relationship that does not involve overlap. A construction
that requires overlap is therefore also fair to Plaintiff, which has had ample opportunity to
express its position and arguments on the required “relationship” through the course of claim
construction proceedings in Geomas, Frontier, Microsoft, and the above-captioned cases.
Finally, because an area that is “broader” when viewed with reference to a certain other
area in the hierarchy might be “narrower” when viewed with reference to a different other area
within the same hierarchy, referring to “overlap” rather than to “at least partially encompassing”
will provide greater clarity.
The Court therefore construes “hierarchy of geographical areas” to require that each area
in the hierarchy at least partially overlaps one or more other areas in the hierarchy. The Court
also hereby expressly rejects Defendants’ proposals of “parent” and “child” areas, as to the
hierarchy terms as well as with regard to the dynamic replication terms. Further, the overlap
requirement only attaches to the “hierarchy,” which does not itself require that the claimed
dynamic replication must occur between areas that overlap. Thus, to whatever extent Defendants
are arguing for requiring overlap between the “broader” area and the “narrower” area in Claim 1,
for example, Defendants’ argument is hereby expressly rejected.
(f) “predetermined”

- 24 -

Plaintiff has noted in its supplemental brief and at the September 17, 2013 hearing that
whereas Claim 20 recites a “predetermine[d] hierarchy of geographical areas,” Claim 1 does not
recite “predetermined.” (Dkt. No. 600 at 3). Plaintiff argues that “[t]he use in claim 20 of the
term ‘predetermined’ before ‘hierarchy of geographical areas’ suggests that the term ‘hierarchy’
itself is not limited to a particular predetermined structure such as a parent-child relationship.”
(Id.) Thus, although the Court has rejected Defendants’ proposals of “parent” and “child,”
Plaintiff has raised an additional dispute by asserting that the “broader geographical area,”
“narrower geographical area,” and the “geographic search area” recited in Claim 1 need not exist
in the database before the search (that is, before the “organizer” receives a “search request”).
The Court has a duty to resolve that dispute. O2 Micro Int’l Ltd. v. Beyond Innovation Tech.
Co., 521 F.3d 1351, 1362-63 (Fed. Cir. 2008).
Claim 1 recites (emphasis added):
1. A system which associates on-line information with geographic areas, said
system comprising:
a computer network wherein a plurality of computers have access to said
computer network; and
an organizer executing in said computer network, wherein said organizer
is configured to receive search requests from any one of said plurality of
computers, said organizer comprising:
a database of information organized into a hierarchy of
geographical areas wherein entries corresponding to each one of said
hierarchy of geographical areas is further organized into topics; and
a search engine in communication with said database, said search
engine configured to search geographically and topically, said search
engine further configured to [s]elect one of said hierarchy of geographical
areas prior to selection of a topic so as to provide a geographical search
area wherein within said hierarchy of geographical areas at least one of
said entries associated with a b[roa]der geographical area is dynamically
replicated into at least o[n]e narrower geographical area, said search
engine further configure[d] to search said topics within said selected
geographical search area.

- 25 -

Claim 1 recites the “narrower geographical area” and the “broader geographical area” as
being “within said hierarchy of geographical areas,” the antecedent basis for which is “a database
of information organized into a hierarchy of geographical areas.” Frontier therefore concluded
that dynamic replication must occur “within the database,” which is a phrase that Plaintiff and
Defendants now agree should be included in the construction of the dynamic replication terms,
as discussed in subsection (2)(a), above. Frontier at 25. Further, the search engine is
“configured to select one of said hierarchy of geographical areas . . . so as to provide a
geographical search area” (emphasis added). Finally, because Claim 1 recites the “hierarchy of
geographical areas” as part of the “organizer” that is “configured to received search requests,”
the “hierarchy of geographical areas” must exist before the search request is received. Cf. Altiris
Inc. v. Symantec Corp., 318 F.3d 1363, 1369-70 (Fed. Cir. 2003) (“[W]e look to the claim
language to determine if, as a matter of logic or grammar, they must be performed in the order
written.”).
The plain language of Claim 1 thus demonstrates that the “narrower geographical area,”
the “broader geographical area,” and the “geographical search area” are selected from among
areas (within “a hierarchy of geographical areas”) that exist in the database before the search
request is received. The Court hereby expressly rejects any argument to the contrary.
(3) Constructions
Based on the analysis set forth in subsections (2)(a) through (2)(f), above, the Court
hereby construes “dynamically replicated” and “hierarchy of geographical areas” as set forth in
the following chart:

- 26 -

Term

Construction

“dynamically replicated”

“automatically copied or inherited, within the
database, at the time needed rather than at a time
decided or established in advance”

(Claims 1 & 20)
“hierarchy of geographical areas”
(Claims 1, 4 & 20)

“an arrangement of related information or data,
ordered from broader geographical areas to narrower
geographical areas, wherein each area at least
partially overlaps one or more of the other areas”

As stated in subsection (2)(d), above, the parties must abide by their apparent mutual
understanding that “at the time needed” refers to a need that arises while generating a response to
a search request.
C. Related Terms
Having resolved the parties’ disputes regarding “dynamically replicated” and “hierarchy
of geographical areas” in section B, above, the Court hereby construes the related disputed terms
accordingly, as set forth in the following chart:

“replicating” (Claim 31)
Plaintiff’s Proposal5

Defendants’ Proposal

Court’s Construction

“copying or inheriting”

Term does not need to be
separately construed in view of
Defendants’ proposed
constructions

“copying or inheriting”

5

As noted in section A, above, Plaintiff’ has adopted the constructions reached by the Frontier
court.
- 27 -

“replicated” (Claims 1 & 20)
Plaintiff’s Proposal

Defendants’ Proposal

Court’s Construction

“copied or inherited”

Term does not need to be
separately construed in view of
Defendants’ proposed
constructions

“copied or inherited”

“dynamically replicating” (Claim 31)
Plaintiff’s Proposal

Defendants’ Proposal

Court’s Construction

“automatically copying or
inheriting, within the database, at
the time needed rather than at a
time decided or established in
advance”

“automatically inheriting, within “automatically copying
the database, at the time of the
or inheriting, within the
search”
database, at the time
needed rather than at a
time decided or
established in advance”

“hierarchy” (Claims 1, 4, 5 & 20)
Plaintiff’s Proposal

Defendants’ Proposal

Court’s Construction

“an arrangement of related
information or data, ordered from
broader general categories to
narrower specific ones”

Term does not need to be
separately construed in view of
Defendants’ proposed
constructions

No construction is
necessary apart from
the Court’s separate
construction of
“hierarchy of
geographical areas” in
section B, above.

“wherein said geographical areas are hierarchically organized” (Claim 32)
Plaintiff’s Proposal

Defendants’ Proposal

Court’s Construction

“wherein said geographical areas
are ordered from broader
geographical categories to
narrower geographical
categories”

“a database of information
organized into interrelated
geographic areas such that there
are parent geographic areas and
child geographic areas”

“wherein said
geographical areas are
ordered from broader
geographical areas to
narrower geographical
areas, and wherein each
area at least partially
overlaps one or more of
the other areas”

- 28 -

“a database of information organized into a hierarchy of geographical areas” (Claim 1)
Plaintiff’s Proposal

Defendants’ Proposal

Court’s Construction

No construction is necessary
apart from the Court’s separate
construction of constituent terms.

“a database of information
organized into interrelated
geographic areas such that there
are parent geographic areas and
child geographic areas”

No construction is
necessary apart from
the Court’s separate
construction of
constituent terms.

“said database of information organized into a
predetermine[d] hierarchy of geographical areas” (Claim 20)
Plaintiff’s Proposal

Defendants’ Proposal

Court’s Construction

No construction is necessary
apart from the Court’s separate
construction of constituent terms
except that “predetermined”
should be construed to mean
“decided or established in
advance.”

“a database of information
organized into interrelated
geographic areas such that there
are parent geographic areas and
child geographic areas”

No construction is
necessary apart from
the Court’s separate
construction of
constituent terms except
that “predetermined” is
hereby construed to
mean “decided or
established in advance.”

“wherein within said hierarchy of geographic areas at least one of said entries associated
with a b[roa]der geographical area is dynamically replicated into at least o[n]e narrower
geographical area” (Claim 1)
Plaintiff’s Proposal

Defendants’ Proposal

Court’s Construction

No construction is necessary
apart from the separate
construction of constituent terms.

“automatically inheriting at least
one entry associated with a
parent geographical area within
the database into at least one of
the child geographical areas
within the database at the time
of a search”

No construction is
necessary apart from
the Court’s separate
construction of
constituent terms.

- 29 -

Defendants’ proposed
construction is hereby
expressly rejected.

“wherein at least one of said entries in said geographical area of relatively larger expanse is
dynamically replicated into at least one of said geographical areas of smaller expanse”
(Claim 20)
Plaintiff’s Proposal

Defendants’ Proposal

Court’s Construction

No construction is necessary
apart from the separate
construction of constituent terms.

“automatically inheriting at least
one entry associated with a
parent geographical area within
the database into at least one of
the child geographical areas
within the database at the time
of a search”

No construction is
necessary apart from
the Court’s separate
construction of
constituent terms.
Defendants’ proposed
construction is hereby
expressly rejected.

“dynamically replicating an entry from broader geographical area into said geographical
search area” (Claim 31)
Plaintiff’s Proposal

Defendants’ Proposal

Court’s Construction

No construction is necessary
apart from the Court’s separate
construction of constituent terms.

“automatically inheriting an
entry associated with a parent
geographical area within the
database into the child
geographical search area within
the database at the time of a
search”

No construction is
necessary apart from
the Court’s separate
construction of
constituent terms.

Defendants’ proposed
construction should be expressly
rejected.

6

Defendants’ proposed
construction is hereby
expressly rejected.6

The Court does not include any overlap requirement in the construction of this disputed term
because Claim 31 does not recite a “hierarchy.” Defendants argued at the September 17, 2013
hearing that the specification does not disclose anything other than a hierarchy and therefore the
doctrine of claim differentiation cannot be applied to Claim 32, which recites “[t]he method of
claim 31 wherein said geographical areas are hierarchically organized.” Defendants thus appear
to argue that if Claim 31 is not construed to require a hierarchy, then Claim 31 would be invalid
because of lack of support in the specification. Such reliance on a validity analysis during claim
construction is disfavored. Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1327 (“While we have acknowledged the
maxim that claims should be construed to preserve their validity, we have not applied that
principle broadly, and we have certainly not endorsed a regime in which validity analysis is a
regular component of claim construction.”). On balance, Defendants have not adequately
justified importing a “hierarchy” requirement into Claim 31.
- 30 -

JCCC at 2, 4, 5, 8, 11, 15 & 16-17.
Finally, indefiniteness arguments were raised while the above-captioned cases were still
consolidated with the Frontier case. See Frontier, ECF Nos. 401 (Defendants’ letter brief) &
404 (Plaintiff’s letter brief); see also Frontier at 34-36 & 35 n.4 (explaining the substance and
circumstances of the letter briefing on indefiniteness). Those arguments are noted in the parties’
September 16, 2013 Revised P.R. 4-5(d) Joint Claim Construction Chart, but the parties did not
address indefiniteness in their supplemental briefing or during the September 17, 2013 hearing.
JCCC at 5 n.1 & 11; (see Dkt. Nos. 597 & 600). Having reviewed Defendants’ indefiniteness
arguments, the Court finds no reason to depart from the findings in Frontier. The Court
therefore hereby expressly rejects Defendants’ indefiniteness arguments for the reasons set forth
.
in Frontier. See Frontier at 38-40.
CONCLUSION
The Court adopts the constructions set forth in this opinion for the disputed terms of the
patent-in-suit. The parties are ordered that they may not refer, directly or indirectly, to each
other’s claim construction positions in the presence of the jury. Likewise, the parties are ordered
to refrain from mentioning any portion of this opinion, other than the actual definitions adopted
by the Court, in the presence of the jury. Any reference to claim construction proceedings is
limited to informing the jury of the definitions adopted by the Court.
SIGNED this 3rd day of January, 2012.
SIGNED this 7th day of November, 2013.

____________________________________
ROY S. PAYNE
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

- 31 -

APPENDIX A
Term

Parties’ Agreement

“said search engine further configured to select
one of said hierarchy of geographical areas
prior to selection of a topic so as to provide a
geographical search area” (Claim 1)

No separate construction necessary

“said search engine configured to select at least No separate construction necessary
one geographical area in said hierarchy of
geographical areas so as to define a
geographical search area” (Claim 20)
“directing a search engine executing in a
computer to select one or more of said
geographical areas so as to select a
geographical search area” (Claim 31)

No separate construction necessary

“narrower geographical area” (Claim 1)

Plain and ordinary meaning

“broader geographical area” (Claims 1 & 31)

Plain and ordinary meaning

“geographical area of relatively smaller
expanse” (Claim 20)

Plain and ordinary meaning

“geographical area of relatively larger
expanse” (Claim 20)

Plain and ordinary meaning

- 32 -