GeoTag Inc v. AT&T Mobility LLC Inc et al

Filing 685

Markman Memorandum Opinion and Order: The Court notes that the Parties have submitted to the Court certain claim terms and phrases that the Parties state need to be construed, but the Parties agree as to the meaning of the terms and phrases. The Court hereby adopts the agreed constructions proposed by the Parties as described in the Joint Claim Construction Chart on file with the Court. (Ordered by Judge Ed Kinkeade on 6/10/2014) (cea)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
DALLAS DIVISION
GEOTAG, INC.
Plaintiff,

v.

AT&T MOBILITY, LLC. &
AT&T SERVICES, INC..,
Defendants.

§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§

CIVIL ACTION NO.
3:13-CV-00169-K

MARKMAN MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
Before the Court are the Parties’ briefs on the issue of claim construction of
the patent in suit, U.S. Patent Number 5,930,474 (“the ‘474 Patent”) The Court
conducted a Markman hearing and has reviewed the Parties’ briefs and all related
filings and evidence, including the patents in suit, the specifications, the patent
prosecution histories to the extent it was submitted by the Parties, as well as the
Parties’ proposed claim constructions.

The Court hereby construes the disputed

claims according to Markman v. Westview Instruments, Inc., 52 F.3d 967 (Fed. Cir.
1995) (en banc), aff’d, 517 U.S. 360 (1996).
I.

Background
A.

Procedural

The matter before the Court stems from litigation initiated in the Eastern
District of Texas. Geotag initiated suit in the Eastern District of Texas under No.
2:10-CV-570-TJW by filing a Complaint for Patent Infringement. The complaint

- 1 -

named many Defendants in that action, including the current Defendants in the
matter before this Court. The case in the Eastern District of Texas was severed as to
the current Defendants before this Court and the case against AT&T Mobility, LLC
and AT&T Services, Inc. was transferred to this Court. The suits in the Eastern
District of Texas remained ongoing as to the remaining Defendants in that matter
and is still currently pending in that Court.
In addition to this ongoing litigation and the litigation over the same patent in
the Eastern District of Texas, Geotag and its predecessor in interest in the patent in
suit have filed other cases alleging infringement of the same patent. These include
two other suits in the Eastern District of Texas. These are Geotag, Inc. v. Frontier
Comm. Corp., et al., Case No. 2:10-CV-265 (“Frontier”) and Geomas (Int’l) Ltd., et al. v.
Idearc Media Services-West, Inc., Case No. 2:06-CV-00475. In addition to these suits,
Microsoft and Google filed a declaratory judgment action regarding the validity of the
patent in suit against Geotag in the District of Deleware, Microsoft Corp. and Google,
Inc. v. Geotag, Inc., Case No. C.A. 11-175-RGA.
To the extent that the various District Courts have construed the claim
language of the patent in suit and the Parties in the current litigation before this
Court have submitted such claim construction orders, the Court has reviewed the
opinions of those Court as they relate to the terms in dispute in the current matter
before the Court. The Court notes, however, that such opinions issued by other
District Courts are not mandatory authority to this Court. They are certainly

- 2 -

persuasive authority, and the Court gives due deference to the opinions of the other
Courts. The Court notes that in these other proceedings the parties, the disputed
claim language, the positions of the parties, the arguments of the parties, and the
evidence before the Courts varied. Depending on these factors, the various claim
constructions of the other Courts may or may not be directly relevant to the claim
construction before this Court in this matter.
B.

The Patent in Suit

The ‘474 Patent describes the invention of systems, machines, and methods
for organizing and searching data. The ‘474 Patent, entitled “Internet Organizer For
Accessing Geographically and Topically Based Information,” was issued by the
USPTO on July 27, 1999. The invention describes a system in which data is
organized into topics and geographical areas. The disclosed invention is particularly
useful for performing internet searches when an end user of the system or machine
wants to locate a particular type of location, such as a store or business, within a
certain geographical area. Because the information is organized into both topical
content and geographical areas, an end user can input or select the desired topics
and/or geographical areas that are to be searched. The search will then be limited to
the particular selected topics within the particular selected geographic areas. For
example, an end user who wishes to locate a hardware store within the city of Dallas,
Texas, can select or input the “hardware store” topic and the “Dallas, Texas”
geographical area. The system can then perform a topical search for “hardware store”

- 3 -

within the information that is associated with the “Dallas, Texas” geographical area.
The system then returns the results that includes information such as the name,
address, and phone number of the store to the end user who now knows where he or
she can find a hardware store within Dallas, Texas. While the invention may be
particularly useful for this type of internet search, it is not limited to this one use. It
is clear that the systems, methods, and machines claimed in the invention could be
used in any type of situation where one desires to relate topical information and
geographical areas. Organizing data into a searchable format that is associated with
both a topic and a geographical area was already known at the time of the invention.
The uniqueness of the ‘474 Patent stems from that fact that entries within the
database are “dynamically replicated” so that the entries correspond to the desired
search area. While it is clear that this dynamic replication is the feature that the
inventors’ claimed that makes the invention unique and patentable, the exact
meaning of dynamic replication is one of the key points of contention in this matter.
The meaning of the phrase “dynamic replication” is disputed by the Parties, and it is
one of the phrases within the claim language that is construed herein and discussed
fully below. Generally the dynamic replication feature of the invention refers to the
fact that the information is not necessarily stored in the system with a reference to
each and every possible geographic area that a user may desire to search. Instead that
information may be stored and associated within a larger geographical area than the
user desires to search. When the user performs a search, the relevant information for

- 4 -

the desired search area is dynamically replicated. For example, when the user selects a
smaller geographical area, than the larger geographical area where the information is
stored, the information related to the desired search area is replicated dynamically, so
as to create a new collection of information that is limited to the user’s desired search
area. It is this dynamic replication feature, that the inventors claim is unique, was
unknown in the prior art, and makes the invention patentable.
II.

Applicable Law - Principles of Claim Construction
Claim construction is a matter of law. See Markman, 52 F.3d at 979. The

Federal Circuit Court has held 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). The Supreme Court has stated that the claims are “‘of
primary importance, in the effort to ascertain precisely what it is that is patented.’”
Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1312 (quoting Merrill v. Yeomans, 94 U.S. 568, 570 (1876)). A
court looks to three primary sources when determining the meaning of claims: (1) the
claims, (2) the specification, and (3) the prosecution history. Markman, 52 F.3d at
979. The claims of the patent must be read in view of the specification of which they
are a part. Id. The specification consists of a written description of the invention
which allows a person of ordinary skill in the art to make and use the invention. Id.
This description may act as a dictionary explaining the invention and defining terms
used in the claims.

Id.

Although a court should generally give such terms their

ordinary meaning, a patentee may choose to be his own lexicographer and use terms

- 5 -

in a manner other than their ordinary meaning, so long as the special definition of
the term is clearly stated in the patent specification or file history. See Vitronics Corp.
v. Conceptronic, Inc., 90 F.3d 1576, 1582 (Fed. Cir. 1996).
The court starts with the claim itself, read in light of the specification. See
Vivid Technologies, Inc. v. American Sci. & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 804 (Fed. Cir.
1999).

While the claims themselves provide significant guidance as to the meaning

of a claim term, the specification is generally dispositive as “it is the single best guide
to the meaning of a disputed term.” Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1314-1315. In addition to
the claim language and specification, the prosecution history is often helpful in
understanding the intended meaning, as well as the scope of technical terms in the
claims. See Vivid, 200 F.3d at 804. In particular, the prosecution history is relevant in
determining whether the patentee intends the language of the patent to be
understood in its ordinary meaning. Using these tools, the court construes only the
claims that are in controversy and only to the extent necessary to resolve the dispute.
Vivid, 200 F.3d at 803.
The words of a claim are usually given their ordinary and customary meaning.
See Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1312. Ordinary and customary meaning is the meaning the
claim term would have to a person of ordinary skill in the art (e.g., field of the
invention). See Id. at 1313; Markman, 52 F.3d at 979. A person of ordinary skill in the
art would read the claim term in the context of the entire patent, including the
specification, not just the particular claim where the term appears. Phillips, 415 F.3d

- 6 -

at 1313. There are instances where the ordinary meaning of claim language, as a
person of skill in the art would understand it, “may be readily apparent even to lay
judges,” thereby requiring “little more than the application of the widely accepted
meaning of commonly understood words.” Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1314. In these
situations, general purpose dictionaries are useful. Id.
In many cases, the court must determine the ordinary and customary meaning
of the claim terms that have a certain meaning in a field of art. Id. The court can look
to “those sources available to the public that show what a person of skill in the art
would have understood disputed claim language to mean.” Id.. These sources can
include “the words of the claims themselves, the remainder of the specification, the
prosecution history, and extrinsic evidence concerning relevant scientific principles,
the meaning of the technical terms, and the state of the art.” Id..
Aside from the written description and the prosecution history, the claims
themselves also offer assistance as to the meaning of certain claim terms. Id. (citing
Vitronics, 90 F.3d at 1582).
When the intrinsic evidence, that is the patent specification and prosecution
history, unambiguously describes the scope of a patented invention, reliance on
extrinsic evidence, which is everything outside the specification and prosecution
history, is improper. See Vitronics, 90 F.3d at 1583. While the Court may consult
extrinsic evidence to educate itself about the invention and relevant technology, it
may not rely upon extrinsic evidence to reach a claim construction that is clearly at

- 7 -

odds with a construction mandated by the intrinsic evidence. See Key Pharm. v. Hercon
Lab. Corp., 161 F.3d 709, 716 (Fed. Cir. 1998).
III.

Construction of the Disputed Patent Claims and Terms
A.

Priority Terms Needing Construction - Disputed Claim Language

The Parties have submitted to the Court sets of priority terms/or phrases that
require claim construction. The Parties dispute the meaning of 1) “entry” and
“entries;” 2) “geographical search area;” 3) “dynamically replicated” and “dynamically
replicating;” 4) “hierarchy’” and 5) certain phrases that use the disputed terms, which
the Parties refer to as the “larger dynamically replicated terms.” These disputed terms
appear in Claims 1, 20, and 31 of the ‘474 Patent. Since the meanings of these
phases and terms are at issue in this matter, the Court must and hereby does construe
these phrases and terms.
Claim 1 of the ‘474 Patent reads as follows:
“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 elect one of
- 8 -

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 [broader] geographical area is
dynamically replicated into at least [one] narrower
geographical area, said search engine further configure to
search said topics within said selected geographical search
area.” ‘474 Patent at 38:36-58.
Claim 20 of the ‘474 Patent reads as follows:
“A machine for locating information organized into geographicallybased areas, said machine comprising:
a database of information accessible [by] a computer, said
database of information organized into a predetermine
hierarchy of geographical areas comprising at least a
geographical area of relatively smaller expanse and a
geographical area of relatively larger expanse, said area of larger
expanse including a plurality of areas of smaller expanse and
wherein entries corresponding to each said hierarchy of
geographical area is further organized into topics; and
a search engine executing in a computer and in communication
with said database, said search engine configured to select at
least one geographical area in said hierarchy of geographical
areas so as to define a geographical search area 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, said search engine further
configured to search said topics within said geographical area.”
‘474 Patent at 39:41-61.

Claim 31 of the ‘474 Patent reads as follows:
“A method for locating on line information comprising the steps of:

- 9 -

organizing a database of on-line information into a plurality of
geographical areas having a plurality of entries associated
therewith;
organizing said entries corresponding to said plurality of
geographical areas into one or more 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 broader geographical area
into said geographical search area; and
displaying said topics associated with said geographical search
area.” ‘474 Patent at 40:40-56.
B.

Person of Ordinary Skill in the Art

Preferably, this Court gives the words of a claim their ordinary and customary
meaning; in other words, the meaning the claim term would have to a person of
ordinary skill in the art. See Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1312-13; Markman, 52 F.3d at 979.
A person of ordinary skill in the art would read the claim term in the context of the
entire patent, not just the particular claim where the term appears. Phillips, 415 F.3d
at 1313. The Court holds that a person of ordinary skill in the art for the ‘474 Patent
is a person with a bachelor’s degree in computer science or an equivalent degree with three
to five years of work experience or graduate studies experience in the fields computer science,
computer programming, or software/database design.

C. Construction of “entries” and “entry”
i. Each Party’s Proposed Constructions

- 10 -

The Parties dispute the meaning of the phrases “entry” and “entries” as they
are used in the Claims 1, 20, and 31 of the ‘474 Patent. The Parties are in agreement,
however that the only difference between construction of “entry” and “entries” is that
the construction of entries is simply the plural construction of entry. The Parties are
also in agreement that the meaning of entry is the same as used in Claims 1, 20, and
31. Therefore the Court will construe the meaning of “entry” and “entries”
accordingly. Furthermore, for the sake of simplicity, the Court, in this order, will
simply refer to “entries” to refer to both the singular and plural version of the terms.
Geotag proposes that the Court construe “entries” to mean “listings that are
contained in the database and that each includes one or more fields.” Joint Statement
Narrowing the Disputed Terms for Construction. AT&T proposes that the Court
construe “entries” to mean “listings contained in the database that each includes a
collection of fields.” Id. Therefore, the dispute as to the meaning of entries is whether
the entries are required to include “one or more fields” or whether the entries are
required to include a “collection of fields.” The major difference between the two
proposed constructions being whether or not an entry can have only one field. Geotag
proposes that an entry can have only one field or may have more than one. AT&T
proposes that an entry must be a collection of fields; therefore, requiring an entry to
have least two fields.
Geotag, in support of its argument that entries have “one or more fields,”
points to the broad usage of the term “entry” in the ‘474 Patent specifications.

- 11 -

Geotag Inc.’s Opening Claim Construction Brief at 7-8. Geotag argues that the term
is used narrowly to describe specific individual items and broadly to describe
collections of data. Id. It argues that because the specifications use “entry” both
narrowly and broadly, then the claim language should be construed to give the
meaning a broad construction. Geotag claims that the construction of “entries”
should allow entries to have only one field, which is broader than requiring that
entries have at least two fields.
AT&T, in support of its argument that entries have a collection of fields, i.e. at
least more than one, argues that the specifications and claims do not support a
construction of “entries” that allows entries to have only one field. Defendants’
Opening Claim Construction Brief at 18-20. AT&T points the Court’s attention to
many descriptions, in the ‘474 Patent specifications, of entries in databases. Each of
these examples, AT&T argues, show entries that have multiple fields. AT&T argues
that the claim language itself supports a construction that requires entries to have
more than one field. The claim language requires, according to AT&T, that entries in
the database be associated with at least a geographical area and a topic. Since the
entries have to be associated with at least these two pieces of information, AT&T
argues, entries must contain more than one field.
ii. Court’s Construction of “entries” and “entry”
The Court is of the opinion that “entries,” as used in the ‘474 Patent claim
language, requires that the entries in the database have more than one field. The

- 12 -

claim language itself and the specifications support such a construction. Geotag is
correct in that the specifications use the term “entry” in both a broad and narrow
manner, but it is apparent from the claim language that when the phrase is used in
the claim language, the inventors are referring to entries containing a collection of
fields, not to entries that could only have one field.
The Court starts with the claim language. While the specifications and file
wrapper of a patent provide insight into the meaning of a claim term, in some cases
the claims themselves provide greater insight into the meaning of particular claim
terms. Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d at 1314. The claim language provides that
insight in this case. The claim language describes a database that is composed of
entries where “entries corresponding to each … geographical area is further organized
into topics …” ‘474 Patent at 38:44-47. The claims also require a search engine that
is “configured to search geographically and topically” and is “configured to search said
topics within said selected geographical search area.” ‘474 Patent at 38:48-58.
As the claim language makes clear, it is necessary for entries to contain at least
a reference to the geographical area associated with each entry and to the topic
associated with each entry. In other words, a particular entry must have fields for
both a geographic area and a topic. The construction of “entries” must take into
consideration that the claim language does not allow for entries that have only one
field.

- 13 -

The specifications of the ‘474 Patent loosely use the term “entry.” Like Geotag
points out, sometimes the specifications use the term to refer to an individual item or
piece of data. For example, the specifications provide “… when it is desired to display
a list of common entries, such as all cities …” and “when the Dview parameter is
specified as “CITY,” the displayed entry will simply be the city name designated as
the NameKey parameter.” ‘474 Patent at 11:65-12:6. In this example, the inventors
used the term “entry” to refer to the displayed name of a city chosen by the user. As a
further example of this type of usage of the term, the ‘474 Patent also provides “…
the entry ‘Points of Interest for Los Angeles’ generates a call to the geographic search
engine …” (‘474 Patent at 22:41-42) and “… the entry ‘California’ generates a call to
the geographical search engine …” (474 Patent at 61-62.) In these examples, the term
“entry” is again used to designate a particular geographic region, California, and a list
of points of interest for a particular city.
By contrast the ‘474 Patent also uses the term “entry” to refer to collections of
data. For example, Table 7 of the ‘474 Patent and the related discussion provides a
clear example of this type of use of the term “entry.” ‘474 Patent at 18:60-18:63;
31:62-36:25. As discussed by the specifications, Table 7 provides “sample entries for
the geographic database …” Id. These examples, provided by Table 7, show that the
entries mentioned by the inventors are collections of data. In particular, Table 7
shows the various attributes associated with different geographical areas within the
database. The specifications go on to describe that the data contained within the

- 14 -

geographic database also includes reference fields (‘474 Patent at 19:30); title fields
(‘474 Patent at 19:41); label fields that include text fields; bullet fields (‘474 Patent
at 19:64); description fields (‘474 Patent at 20:7.) This example clearly lays out that
entries in this specific embodiment contain multiple fields.
In a similar manner, the ‘474 Patent specifications also describe that the
structure of the “Yellow Pages Database” embodiment also consists of entries that
contain a multitude of fields. ‘474 Patent at 24:28-25-20; Figure 17; Table 9 37:3667. Figure 17, Table 9, and the related discussion in the specifications all clearly
provide multiple examples of fields associated with the entries in the yellow page
database, such as: name, address, phone, fax, expire date, and other various fields. Id.
When the term “entry” is used in this manner (i.e. to describe the structure of data in
a database) in the specifications, the entries are always associated with more than one
field.
While it may be the case that the inventors used the term “entry” in more than
one way in the specifications, the meaning of “entry” in the claim language is not
used so broadly and should not be construed as if it was. Often, when an inventor
uses a certain phrase or term in a broad manner in patent specifications, it would be
correct to impart the same broad meaning into the same phrase if it is used in the
claim language, but, the goal of claim construction is to ascertain the true meaning of
the claim language. To do so, this Court must determine the true nature and scope of

- 15 -

claimed invention. A construction that most closely aligns itself with the nature and
extent of the invention is the correct claim construction.
In the ‘474 Patent, construing the claim term “entries” broadly because the
inventors’ used the phrase in the specifications in more than one way would
improperly give the claim language more breadth than it deserves. Geotag asserts that
the claim language should be given a broad construction because of the different ways
that the inventors used the term “entry” in the specifications. A closer examination of
the use of the terms and the claim language reveals that this is not the proper
construction of that term.
The specifications use “entry” to describe a particular item or piece of data and
to describe a collection of data, but when “entry” is used to describe a particular item
of data, the inventors are not referring to entries in a database. They are merely
referring to a particular category or categories of particular geographic areas. The use
of “entry” in this way is limited to describing things like “Points of Interest for Los
Angeles,” “California,” or a particular city. These are not references to database
entries. They are simply references to different categories that can be used to
designate different geographical areas or topics.
In contrast, when the ‘474 Patent specifications refer to “entries” in the other
way that the inventors used the term “entry”, they are specifically referring to
database entries. As discussed above, Table 7 and particularly the related specification
discussion provide examples of the type of data that is stored within a geographical

- 16 -

database entry. Table 9, Figure 17, and the related discussion do the same thing for
the type of data that is stored in the yellow page database embodiment. In
addition, when the term “entries” is used in this manner, it is always associated with
multiple fields.
The two uses of entry in the specifications are two very distinct usages and the
usage associated with the way that information is stored in the databases is the
correct usage to apply to the claim construction because that usage aligns with the
nature and scope of the claim invention. The claim language is specifically describing
the entries that are in the database. Claim 21 provides “… 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 …” ‘474 Patent at 41-61. This language clearly indicates that the term
“entries” in the claim refers to those that are in the database. The other claims have
similar language, and they all describe entries as being in the database. The correct
construction of “entries” must take into account the distinct manner in which the
term is used in the claim language. Since the disputed claim language is being used to
describe the data stored within a database, the construction of “entries” should
correspond to that particular usage in the specifications. This construction takes into
account the true nature and scope of the claimed invention. A person of ordinary skill
in the art would understand that the claim language is referring to the data stored
within the database and that the meaning of this term in the claim language would be

- 17 -

associated with the specification’s description of the entries stored within the
database.
A construction that adopts or includes the other manner that the inventors
used “entries” in the specifications (i.e. to refer to one particular item) would lead to
illogical meanings in the claim constructions. Their usage of the term is used in the
specifications to refer to particular geographic areas or topics that could be selected
by a user. For example, one use of the term in this way refers to the entry
“California.” California is a geographical area. The parties are in agreement that the
claims require dynamic replication of the entries from one geographical area into
another geographical area. If “California,” a geographical area, was an entry, as
contemplated by the claims, the claim requirement that the “California” entry be
dynamically replicated from a larger geographical area into a smaller geographical area
would not make any sense. This incorrect interpretation of the claim language and
meaning of the invention would result in an absurd meaning of the claim language.
Geotag’s argument that entries should be construed broadly so they may
contain only one field is not persuasive. Because the claim language requires that
entries have at least two fields (one for geographical area and one for topic), the
disputed claim language is referring to entries in a database, and the specifications
only teach entries in databases that have multiple fields; the Court construes “entries”
to mean “listings contained in the database that each includes a collection of fields”
and “entry” to mean “listing contained in the database includes a collection of fields.”

- 18 -

D. Construction of “geographical search area”
i. Each Party’s Proposed Constructions
The Parties dispute the meaning of the phrase “geographical search area” used
in the Claims 1, 20, and 31 of the ‘474 Patent. The Parties are in agreement that the
meaning of “geographical search area” is the same throughout the ‘474 Patent. For
that reason the Court will construe the meaning of “geographical search area” in the
same way throughout the ‘474 Patent.
Geotag proposes that the Court construe “geographical search area” to mean
“the particular selected geographical area within the database for which the associated
data records in the database are to be searched.” Joint Statement Narrowing the
Disputed Terms for Construction. AT&T proposes that the Court construe
“geographical search area” to mean “the particular selected geographical area of the
hierarchy of geographical areas within the database for which the associated entries in
the database are to be searched.” Id. There are two major differences between the
proposed constructions. First, AT&T requests that the construction of “geographical
search area” specify that this area is a particular area “of the hierarchy of geographical
areas,” while Geotag contends that requiring the geographical search area to be “of
the hierarchy of geographical areas” improperly limits the claims. Second, Geotag
contends that what is searched are the “data records” of the database, while AT&T
argues that what is searched are the “entries” of the database.

- 19 -

In support of the argument that the geographical search area is “of the
hierarchy of geographical areas” within the database, AT&T argues that the claim
language dictates that the search area be an area that is part of the hierarchy of
geographical areas. Defendants’ Opening Claim Construction Brief at 16-18. AT&T
points to the claim language in Claims 1 and 20. Id. Claim 1 requires a “hierarchy of
geographical areas” and a search engine that is configured “… to select one of said
hierarchy of geographical areas prior to selection of a topic so as to provide a
geographical search area …” ‘474 Patent at 38:35-58. Claim 20 has very similar
language that also requires a hierarchy of geographical areas and a search engine
configured to select one of the areas within the hierarchy to define the geographical
search area. Id at 39:41-61. AT&T contends that its proposed construction aligns
with the claim language by requiring that the search area to be defined as one of the
areas within the hierarchy of geographical areas. Defendants’ Opening Claim
Construction Brief at 16-18. For Claim 31 which does not explicitly require a
hierarchy of geographical search areas, AT&T appears to argue that the dynamic
replication of entries, which is required by Claim 31, from broader to narrower areas
implies that Claim 31 also requires a hierarchy of geographical search areas. Id.
AT&T appears to argue that there must be a hierarchy of geographical areas because
there are both broad and narrow geographical areas. Id.
Geotag argues that inclusion of a requirement that the geographical search area
is “of the hierarchy of geographical areas” in the claim construction improperly

- 20 -

narrows the claim language. Geotag Inc.’s Opening Claim Construction Brief at 1314. Specifically, Geotag points out that Claim 31 of the ‘474 Patent does not actually
require a “hierarchy of geographical areas.” Id. Geotag argues that Claim 31 requires a
“plurality of geographical areas.” Id. Geotag argues that inclusion “of the hierarchy of
geographical areas” in the claim construction, would improperly limit the Claim 31
because the claim language does not require a hierarchy of geographical areas. Id.
Geotag argues that Claim 20 allows for selection of one or more geographical areas
within the hierarchy. Id. It argues that inclusion of the disputed phrase would also
improperly narrow Claim 20 because this would limit the geographical search to a
single hierarchy of geographical areas, which is in direct conflict with the claim
language. Id.
The Parties also dispute whether “data records” or “entries” are searched
within the “geographical search area.” Geotag’s proposed construction indicates that
“data records” are searched. Id. AT&T’s proposed construction indicates that
“entries” are searched. Defendants’ Opening Claim Construction Brief at 16-18.
AT&T argues that the claim language makes it clear that “entries” are what are
contained within the database and that is what is searched within the “geographical
search area.” Id. Geotag does not provide any support or argument why the
construction should indicate that

“data records” and not “entries” are searched.

Geotag Inc.’s Opening Claim Construction Brief at 13-14. Geotag simply inserts

- 21 -

“data records” into the construction without any support or explanation why this
construction is correct. Id.
ii. Court’s Construction of “geographical search area”
The Court is of the opinion that inclusion of the “of the hierarchy of
geographical areas” into the construction of “geographical search area,” as proposed
by AT&T would improperly limit the claim language. The Court is also of the
opinion that what is actually searched within the “geographical search area” are the
entries, not data records. The claim language supports this construction and the
Court will construe “geographical search area” in this manner.
Adoption of a construction of “geographical search area” that includes the
requirement that the geographical search area be one of the areas of the hierarchy of
geographical areas would improperly limit the claims. The improper limitation on the
claims, which would be caused by accepting AT&T’s proposed construction, is the
clearest in regards to Claim 31. Claim 31, as Geotag points out, does not actually
require a hierarchy of geographical search areas. Claim 31 recites that the one of the
steps of the claimed method involves “…organizing a database of on-line information
into a plurality of geographical areas having a plurality of entries associated
therewith ….” ‘474 Patent at 40:43-56. Another step of the method is “… 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 …” Id. The claim language itself
makes it clear that geographical search area is selected from a plurality of geographical

- 22 -

areas, not from a hierarchy of geographical areas. In fact, Claim 31 never mentions a
“hierarchy of geographical areas.”
This is in sharp contrast to the language of Claim 1. Claim 1 recites that one of
the components of the claimed system is “… a database of information organized into
a hierarchy of geographical areas ….” ‘474 Patent at 38:35-38. Claim 1 goes on to
recite that another component of the claimed system is a search engine that is “…
configured to 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 …” Id. Claim 1, therefore, does in fact require a
hierarchy of geographical areas and that the selected “geographical search area” be
one of the areas within that hierarchy of geographical areas. Claim 20 recites very
similar requirements for the information to be organized into a hierarchy of
geographical areas and for the geographical search area to be selected from that
hierarchy. Id at 39:41-61.
Adoption of a construction of “geographical search area” that requires that this
area be within the hierarchy of geographical areas would improperly limit the
meaning of the phrase because that construction would import the hierarchy
requirement into Claim 31, which does not require a hierarchy of geographical areas.
The inventors clearly chose to differentiate, in the claim language, between a
“hierarchy of geographical areas” and a “plurality of geographical areas.” The change
in the claim language between Claims 1 and 20 and Claim 31, indicate that the

- 23 -

inventors meant to claim something different in each claim. As just discussed, Claims
1 and 20 claim hierarchies of geographical areas, while Claim 30 claims a plurality of
geographical areas. If the inventors intended Claim 31 to be a hierarchy of
geographical areas then they would have simply included this requirement in the
claim language, like they did for Claims 1 and 20. They did not choose to do so. They
modified the language of Claim 31 to claim a plurality of geographical areas. It would
be improper to adopt a construction that negates this distinction made by the
inventors. If the Court adopted a construction that required all “geographical search
areas” to be “of the hierarchy of geographical areas,” this construction would negate
this distinction.
Claim 32, which is a dependent claim of Claim 31 makes clear that the
inventors’ intended to make a distinction between pluralities of geographical areas
and hierarchies of geographical areas. Claim 31 requires a plurality of geographical
areas. Claim 32 reads as follows: “The method of Claim 31 wherein said geographical
areas are hierarchically organized.” Id at 40:57-58. This dependent claim makes it
clear that there is a distinction between pluralities of geographical areas and
hierarchies of geographical areas. A dependent claim is used to narrow an
independent claim. That is exactly what dependent Claim 32 does to independent
Claim 31. Claim 31 broadly claims a plurality of geographical areas, which is not
imposed with any particular type of structure. Claim 32 takes that plurality of areas
and further imposes that it be organized hierarchically. Id. If the Court was to adopt

- 24 -

a construction of “geographical search area” that required the geographical areas of
Claim 31 to be organized hierarchically, then this construction would totally negate
Claim 32.
Adoption of a construction that requires the “geographical search area” to be
“of the hierarchy of geographical areas” would merely be repetitive when applied to
Claim 1 and Claim 20. These claims already contain language that requires that the
geographical search area to be “of the hierarchy of geographical areas.” Id. at 38:3538; 39:41-61. Since the claims already impose such a limitation on the geographical
search area there is no need to repeat this limitation. At best it would be redundant
to include the requirement that the “geographical search area” was “of the hierarchy
of geographical areas.” At worst, such a construction could lead to ambiguity in the
claim language and confusion of the jurors.
Regarding Geotag’s proposal that the construction of “geographical search
area” should indicate that “data records” are what are searched, the Court does not
find any support for this construction. Geotag in its briefing does not provide any
argument or support for its inclusion of “data records” in the construction of
“geographical search area.” Furthermore, as AT&T points out, the claim language
itself makes it clear that what is contained within the database are “entries,” not
“data records.” The language of Claims 1, 20, and 31 all require a database that
contains “entries.” Id. at 38:35-58; 39:41-61; 40:43-56. These entries are further
associated with both geographical areas and topics. They all also require the

- 25 -

capability to search or display the topics within the geographical search area. Since
the topics that are searched or displayed are the topics within the entries, it is the
entries that are searched within the geographical search area. The language of Claims
1, 20, and 31 make no reference at all to “data records.”
Some dependent claims of the ‘474 Patent, refer to “data records.” Each of the
independent Claims 1, 20 and 31 have a following dependent claim that further
requires the “entries” to be composed of “data records.” Claim 24 recites, “The
machine of Claim 20, wherein said entries comprise data records …” (Id at 40:5-7);
Claim 18 recites, “The system of Claim 1, wherein said entries comprises a plurality
of data records ….” (Id at 39:34-37); and Claim 36 recites, “The method of Claim 31
herein said entries comprise data records …” (Id at 40:66-41:2.) As just stated, the
purpose of a dependent claim is to further narrow the independent claims. Since each
of these dependent claims require that the “entries” be “data records,” “entries” and
“data records,” as used in the ‘474 Patent claims must have two different meanings
and the meaning of “entries” must be broader than the meaning of “data records.” To
construe the phrase “geographical search area” of Claims 1, 20, and 31 to mean that
“data records” where to be searched would negate this distinction. This proposed
construction would negate dependent Claims 18, 24, and 36.
A construction of “geographical search area” that imposes that this area be “of
the hierarchy of geographical areas” would improperly limit Claim 31, would be
redundant in Claims 1 and 20, and would negate the inventors’ distinction between

- 26 -

pluralities of geographical areas and hierarchies of geographical areas. A construction
of “geographical search area” that requires data records to be searched, as opposed to
entries being searched, would be contrary to the clear language of Claims 1, 20, and
31 and would negate the inventors’ clear distinction between the meanings of
“entries” and “data records.” For these reasons, the Court construes “geographical
search area” to mean “the particular selected geographical area within the database
for which the associated entries in the database are to be searched.”
E.

Construction

of

“dynamically

replicated”

and

“dynamically

replicating”
i. Each Party’s Proposed Constructions
The Parties dispute the meaning of the phrases “dynamically replicated” and
“dynamically replicating” as they are used in the Claims 1, 20, and 31 of the ‘474
Patent. The Parties are in agreement, however that the only difference between
construction of “dynamically replicated” and “dynamically replicating” is the tense of
the construction. The Parties are also in agreement that the meaning of “dynamically
replicated” and “dynamically replicating” is the same throughout the claims of the
‘474 Patent. The Court will construe the meaning of “dynamically replicated” and
“dynamically replicating” with the same meaning. For the sake of simplicity, the
Court will simply refer to “dynamically replicated” to refer to both versions of the
phrase.

- 27 -

Geotag proposes that the Court construe “dynamically replicated” to mean
“automatically copied or inherited, within the database, at the time needed rather
than at a time decided or established in advance.” Joint Statement Narrowing the
Disputed Terms for Construction. AT&T proposes that the Court construe
“dynamically replicated” to mean “automatically inherited within the database at the
time of a search.” Id. The Parties have two points of disagreement about the
construction of “dynamically replicated.” First, the Parties disagree as to whether or
not dynamic replication means that the information is “inherited or copied” or if it is
simply “inherited.” Geotag proposes that the phrase encompasses both inheriting and
copying. AT&T proposes that the phrase only refers to inheriting. Secondly, the
Parties dispute the timing of the dynamic replication. Geotag proposes that the
dynamic replication occurs “at the time needed rather than at a time decided or
established in advance.” AT&T proposes that the dynamic replication occurs at “the
time of a search.”
In support of its argument that dynamic replication of entries means either
inheriting or copying entries, Geotag argues that the patent supports a construction
of “dynamic replication” that includes copying and that two other Federal Courts and
the USPTO have interpreted the phase so that it includes copying. Geotag Inc’s
Opening Claim Construction Brief at 11-13.
In support of its argument that “dynamic replication” only includes inheriting,
AT&T argues that the ‘474 Patent specification does not support a construction of

- 28 -

the phrase that includes the concept of copying. Defendant’s Opening Claim
Construction Brief at 8-12. AT&T also argues that the file wrapper indicates that the
patent examiner understood “dynamically replicated” to mean “automatically
inherited” which does not include copying. Id.
ii. Court’s Construction of “dynamically replicated” and
“dynamically replicating”
The Court is of the opinion that the ‘474 Patent specifications do not support
a construction of “dynamic replication” that includes “copying.” Furthermore, the file
wrapper indicates that the disputed phrase means “automatically inheriting.”
The claim language does not provide any guidance as to the meaning of
“dynamically replicated.” Originally, the ‘474 Patent application did not include
claims that included the disputed phrase. The “dynamically replicated” limitations of
the ‘474 Patent claims were added after the patent examiner objected to the existing
application claims as unpatentable because they were obvious in light of the prior art.
Apx. ISO Defendants AT&T Mobility LLC and AT&T Services, Inc.’s Opening
Claim Construction Brief at 110 – 114. The file wrapper indicates that the examiner
conducted an interview with the inventors on the matter. Id. As a result of that
interview the patent examiner and the inventors appear to have agreed that the
claims would not be obvious if they included the dynamic replication limitation. Id.
The claims were then amended to include the dynamic replication limitations. Id.
Prior to the addition of this limitation the claims did not refer to “dynamically

- 29 -

replicating,” “inheriting,” or “copying” and no other changes to the claim language
were added to help understand the meaning of the “dynamically replicated.” Id. The
claims themselves provide no guidance as to an understanding of the disputed phrase.
The Court further notes that the disputed phrase “dynamically replicated” does not
have an understood meaning in the field of the invention. It appears that the
inventor’s created the phrase to describe the unique feature of the invention. Since
the claims do not provide any guidance to the meaning of the disputed phrase and
the phrase does not have any particular meaning within the field of the invention, the
‘474 Patent specifications and file wrapper must support the construction of
“dynamically replicated.”
The ‘474 Patent specifications provide some guidance as to the meaning of the
disputed claim language. Both Parties direct the Court’s attention to the same
passages

within the ‘474 Patent

specifications

to support

their proposed

constructions. These portions of the specifications address two different concepts that
are discussed within the specifications. First, they address the dynamic creation of
webpages. Secondly, they discuss the automatic inheritance of fields within entries in
the database.
The passages that refer to dynamic creation of webpages include: “… the
inventors have recognized the need for a system which dynamically generates
display documents in order to accommodate the various kinds of information and
information formats which may be found on the Internet …” (‘474 Patent at 2:59-

- 30 -

62); “… which template parameters should be used to dynamically construct an
HTML page suited for the display of the information contained within the notes
document …” (‘474 Patent at 17:61-64); “… the generated HTML documents are
significantly different since the files are dynamically created rather than formed in a
static format … (‘474 Patent 25:63-66).
These passages do not provide any guidance as to the meaning of “dynamically
replicated” as it is used in the claim language. These passages all refer to dynamic
creation of webpages and HTML documents. The disputed claim language, clearly,
does not refer to dynamic creation of web page and HTML documents. The claim
language refers to the dynamic replication of database entries between various
geographic areas. At best, the fact that both the claim language and the webpage
creation passages both use the term “dynamic” could be used to understand the
inventors’ meaning of “dynamic.” This analysis is not necessary because the Parties
do not dispute the meaning of “dynamic.” The Parties agree that “dynamic,” as used
in the claim language, means “automatic.” It is the meaning of “replication” that is
disputed by the Parties. They dispute whether or not “replication” means “inheriting”
alone or “inheriting or copying.”
The second type of passage cited by the Parties to support their claim
construction contentions relates to “dynamically replicated” as it is used in the claim
language. These portions of the specifications relate to the inheritance of entry fields
from one geographic area to another geographic area. The specifications state: “…

- 31 -

The data contained within the geographic database 210 also include reference fields
1305 which include a reference city, reference region, …. 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 …” (‘474 Patent at 29-36); “… The data stored within the geographic
database 210 further includes label fields 1315 which include text fields shown to
the user as folder titles … for each of the parent geographic entries related to the
current entry. …. The label field 1315 is automatically inherited from the parent
entry …” (‘474 Patent at 19:46-63.) These passages describe certain fields within
entries that are automatically inherited from a parent geographic area into a child
geographic area. The parent geographic areas within the database contain certain
fields, and those fields are automatically inherited into the entries that are created for
the child geographic areas.
Both Parties refer to these portions of the specifications to support their
proposed claim constructions. Geotag claims that they show that the entries are
inherited or copied. AT&T points out that the passages do not refer to copying the
fields. The passages refer to automatically inheriting the fields within the entries. It is
clear from the specification language that the fields are automatically inherited from
an entry within a parent geographic area into an entry in a child geographic area;
similar to the manner in which a parent can inherit genetic information from a child.
The specific information that is inherited is transferred from the parent to the child,

- 32 -

but inheritance does not necessarily mean that the child is an exact copy of the
parent.
The specifications do not refer to copying the entries. They only refer to
automatic inheritance of fields within an entry. These passages of the specifications
do not support a construction that includes “copying.” If the inventors’ desired
“dynamically replicated” to include “copying” of entries they could have easily
included such a description that described “copying” of entries from one geographic
area into another geographic area. Instead of this inclusion the inventors’ referred to
“automatic inheritance” of fields within entries.
Besides the above discussed phrases relating to the inheritance of fields from
and to entries, the ‘474 Patent appears to be silent as to the meaning of “dynamically
replicated.” The ‘474 Patent fails to disclose any other functionality of the invention
that is related to “dynamically replicated” or that further explains the inventors’
meaning of the phrase, which does not have any particular meaning within the field
of the invention. The Court is of the opinion that any construction of “dynamically
replicated” should be limited to the description actually provided by the inventors.
The construction should be limited to “inheritance” of entries.
The file wrapper indicates that the patent examiner also understood
“dynamically replicated” to mean “automatic inheritance.” Apx. ISO Defendants
AT&T Mobility LLC and AT&T Services, Inc.’s Opening Claim Construction Brief at
110 – 114. While a patent examiner’s statement as to the meaning of a claim phrase

- 33 -

does not conclusively define that phrase, this statement is clear evidence as to how a
person of ordinary skill in the art would understand the claim language. As discussed
above, the inventors and patent examiner disputed whether or not the original claims
were obvious in light of the prior art. Id. As a result of this dispute, the inventors
added the “dynamically replicated” limitation to the ‘474 Patent claims. Id. As part
of this process, the patent examiner conducted an interview with the inventors. Id.
The examiner’s notes from that interview show that the examiner understood
“dynamic replication” to mean “automatic inheritance.” Id. The examiner also
indicated that “dynamic replication” also referred to a parent-child relationship. Id.
Even though the ‘474 Patent is fairly silent as to the inventors’ meaning of this
phrase, it does indicate that the concept involves inheritance of information and a
parent-child like relationship between entries in various geographical areas. This is
appears to be the exact same understanding of the concept that the patent examiner
held, based on the interview with the inventors and the subsequent changes to the
claim language. The patent examiner’s belief as to the meaning of the phrase supports
a construction of “dynamic replication” that only includes “inheriting,” and does not
including “copying,” just like the ‘474 Patent specifications.
The Parties also dispute the timing of dynamic replication. Geotag proposes
that the dynamic replication occurs “at the time needed rather than at a time decided
or established in advance.” AT&T proposes that the replication occurs “at the time of
a search.”

- 34 -

Geotag simply argues that this Court should adopt a construction of the phrase
that requires dynamic replication to occur at the time needed rather than at a time
decided or established in advance because the Courts in Frontier and Geomas adopted
this construction. Geotag Inc.’s Opening Claim Construction Brief at 12 and Geotag
Inc.’s Responsive Claim Construction Brief at 5-7. Geotag also argues that AT&T’s
proposed construction is incorrect because the claims do not have a “search”
limitation. Id. Including “at the time of the search” would improperly limit the claims
because it adds a search limitation to the claims. Id.
AT&T argues that the dynamic replication occurs at the time of the search
because this is required by the claim language. Defendant’s Opening Claim
Construction Brief at 8-12. AT&T argues that because dynamic replication appears in
Claims 1 and 20 in the language that is describing the search engine, the dynamic
replication must occur at the time of the search. Id. It also argues that Claim 31
requires the dynamic replication step to occur immediately after the search engine has
been directed to select a geographical area, which, AT&T argues indicates that the
dynamic replication is performed at the time of the search. Id.
The Court is of the opinion that neither of the Parties’ proposed constructions
fully encompass the disclosed invention. Both of the proposed constructions lead to
ambiguity in the claim language. The correct claim construction is one in which the
Court considers the full nature and scope of the claimed invention. A claim

- 35 -

construction that more closely aligns the meaning of the claim language with the full
nature and scope of the invention is the correct claim construction.
In this case, the disclosed invention is an invention that relates to the
organization and searching of information by geographical area and topics. The
invention dynamically replicates entries from one geographical area to another
geographical area. As indicated by the file wrapper it is this dynamic replication of
entries that made the invention patentable. Without the dynamic replication
limitation the invention would not be patentable because such methods and systems
either already existed in the prior art or were obvious in light on the prior art. If a
system or method in which the entries to be searched within a particular geographical
search area already existed before the time the user actually wanted to search the
information, this system or method would not be novel. The key to novelty of the
invention is the fact that the entries associated with the area to be searched did not
exist ahead of time. The entries for the geographical search area are dynamically
created. They are not prestored or pregenerated in the database. Geotag is partially
correct in stating that the dynamic replication occurs at the time needed.
Geotag’s proposed construction suffers from ambiguity. The construction fails
to specify at what particular time the dynamic replication is needed. “At the time
needed” could refer to any number of time points within the system or method. That
construction leaves the open the question of which particular point in the process
dynamic replication is needed. For example this could be interpreted to mean that

- 36 -

dynamic replication is needed at anyone of the following time points in the process:
when the user first sits down and decides that he or she wants to perform a search; at
the time the user selects an area for searching; at the time a user selects a topic for
searching; at the time the user actually clicks on a search icon, or at the time the
system actually receives and processes the search request; etc. Simply stating the
dynamic replication occurs at “the time needed” opens up the claim language to these
uncertainties and ambiguities.
AT&T’s proposed construction suffers from very similar ambiguity and
uncertainties. AT&T requests that this Court adopt a construction that requires
dynamic replication to occur “at the time of the search.” Like the case in Geotag’s
proposed construction, it leaves open the question of when does the search actually
occur. The same questions and uncertainties that exist in Geotag’s proposed
construction also occur in AT&T’s construction. AT&T’s proposed construction is
even more uncertain than Geotag’s because searching a database is a process that
requires many steps to occur. It would be unclear at what point during this process
dynamic replication actually occurs.
AT&T’s proposed construction would be improper because, like Geotag points
out, the claims do not actually contain a “search” limitation. The claims describe
systems or methods for organizing information into a database, which includes
dynamic replication of entries and the capability to search those entries by
geographical areas and/or topics. The claims do not actually require a search to occur.

- 37 -

The systems and method only structure the information in a certain manner that
facilitates searching. Therefore, if the phrase “dynamically replicating” was construed
to mean “at the time of a search” this would improperly limit the claim language
because it is imposing upon the system or method that a search actually be
performed.
For example, Claim 31 shows a method in which first a geographical search
area is selected, then entries are dynamically replicated into that geographical search
area, then the topics associated with the newly generated geographical search area
entries are displayed to the user. ‘474 Patent at 43-56. The step involving the display
of the topics is the final step in the method of Claim 31. Claim 31 does not actually
require a user to then go on to perform any search of those topics. The topics are
simply displayed to the user.
The Claim language does not require that a search actually be performed until
one reads dependent Claims 37 and 38. Claim 37 reads as follows: “The method of
Claim 36 further comprising the step of directing said search engine to select one of
said topics associated with said geographical area.” ‘474 Patent at 41:3-5. Claim 38
reads as follows: “The method of claim 37 further comprising the step of displaying
said data records associated with said selected topic.” ‘474 Patent at 41:6-8. These
claims together, while they do not explicitly state that a search is performed, describe
the steps of selecting a particular topic within the dynamically replicated entries of
the geographical search area and the next step of displaying the records associated

- 38 -

with that particular geographical search area and topic. The additional steps in
Claims 37 and 38 describe the search process and the related display of the particular
results of that search. The fact that the inventors included the search process and the
display of the search results in claims that are dependent on the method claimed by
Claim 31 further shows that Claim 31 does not actually require a search, that the
inventors did not intend for Claim 31 to require a search, and that a person of the
ordinary skill in the art would read these claims together, along with the rest of the
‘474 Patent, and understand that Claim 31 did not require a search. The Court
refuses to adopt AT&T’s proposed construction that requires dynamic replication to
occur at the time of a search.
From an understanding of the full nature and scope of the claimed invention
and from the claim language itself, the timing of the dynamic replication may be
determined. As just discussed above that timing is not at the time of a search, as
proposed by AT&T, nor at the time needed, as proposed by Geotag. From the claim
language, the dynamic replication must occur after the geographic search area is
selected. Claims 1, 20, and 31 require that there be a database of information that is
organized into various geographical areas. They also then require that a user select a
particular geographical area that is to be searched. All claims go on to require that the
information stored in the database about certain geographical areas be dynamically
replicated into a “geographical search area.” In Claim 1 this event occurs from a
broader area into a narrower area. ‘474 Patent at 52-56. In Claim 20 this event

- 39 -

occurs from a larger geographical area to a smaller geographical area. ‘474 Patent at
52-61. In Claim 31 this occurs from a broader are into the geographical search area.
‘474 Patent at 53-54. From a plain reading of the claim language, the dynamic
replication occurs after the user selects a particular geographical area to be searched.
At this point the entries are dynamically replicated. Dynamically replicating the
entries cannot occur before a geographical search area is selected. The geographical
search area must be selected before replication of the entries, because prior to
selection of the geographical search area the particular geographical area from the
hierarchy or plurality of geographical areas the entries should be replicated from is
unknown. Determination of these areas cannot be determined until a user selects the
desired geographical search area of the system or method. The Court is of the opinion
that the dynamic replication must occur after the selection of a geographical search
area.
This construction also naturally aligns with the full nature and scope of the
invention and with the key distinguishing feature of the invention that makes that
invention patentable in light of the prior art. In order to make the claims novel, the
inventors had to add the dynamic replication limitation to the claims. A system or
method that had predetermined or pregenerated the entries associated with the
geographical search area would not have been patentable because such a system was
already in existence in the prior art or was obvious in light of the prior art. This
means that a database that already contained entries associated with a particular

- 40 -

geographical search area before a user selected that geographical search area would
not be a novel invention. This cannot be what is described by the ‘474 Patent. The
‘474 Patent requires that the entries associated with the geographical search area not
be in existence before the user selects that geographical search area. In other words, in
order for the disclosed invention to be patentable, it must dynamically replicate the
entries for the geographic search area after such geographic search area is selected.
Because the Parties proposed constructions would lead to ambiguity in the
claim language and the claim language and the nature and scope of the invention
dictate that dynamic replication occur after selection of a geographical search area the
Court is of the opinion that dynamic replication occurs after the selection of a
geographical search area, and that any construction of “dynamically replicated”
should take into account this limitation of the claims. In regards to whether or not
“dynamically replicated” includes copying, the Court is of the opinion that any
construction of “dynamically replicated” should take into account: (1) that the claim
language does not clarify the meaning of this phrase; (2) the inventors chose to use
this phrase in the claims; (3) the phrase does not have a commonly understood
meaning in the field of the invention; (4) the ‘474 Patent specifications only describe
inheriting information; and (5) the file wrapper indicates that the meaning of the
phrase is automatic inheritance. The Court construes “dynamically replicated” to
mean “automatically inherited within the database after selection of a geographical

- 41 -

search area,” and “dynamically replicating” to mean “automatically inheriting within
the database after selection of a geographical search area.”
F. Construction of “hierarchy”
i. Each Party’s Proposed Constructions
The Parties dispute the meaning of the phrase “hierarchy” used in the Claims
of the ‘474 Patent. The Parties are in agreement that the meaning of “hierarchy” is
the same throughout the ‘474 Patent. The Court will construe the meaning of
“hierarchy” the same throughout the ‘474 Patent.
Geotag proposes that the Court construe “hierarchy” to mean “an arrangement
of related information or data, ordered from broader categories to narrower specific
ones.” Joint Statement Narrowing the Disputed Terms for Construction. AT&T
proposes that the Court give “hierarchy” it’s plain and ordinary meaning, without
proposing what that plain and ordinary meaning would be. Id.
In support of its argument that hierarchy should be construed to mean “an
arrangement of related information or data, ordered from broader categories to
narrower specific ones,” Geotag argues that the term is used in the ‘474 Patent to
describe a general organization of data, as opposed to a specific structure of a
database. Geotag, Inc’s Opening Claim Construction Brief at 8-10. Geotag asserts
that a hierarchical database is not what is claimed by the ‘474 Patent. Id. A
hierarchical database is a particular type of database that incorporates the
information into a tree like structure and that this is not what is required by the

- 42 -

“hierarchy” limitation of the ‘474 Patent. Id. Geotag asserts that its proposed
construction is correct because it addresses this distinction between what the
limitation actually requires and the commonly accepted meaning of a hierarchical
database. Id.
Geotag argues that the claim language and the specifications support its
proposed construction. Id. Geotag argues that the specifications describe that there is
a relationship between the entries in the database, but that the specifications do not
limit that relationship to a tree like structure. Id. Geotag further asserts that the
Courts in Frontier agreed with Geotag’s proposed construction. Id.
AT&T argues that “hierarchy” should be given its plain and ordinary meaning.
Defendant’s Opening Claim Construction Brief at 20-21. However, AT&T does not
provide to the Court a proposed plain and ordinary meaning of “hierarchy.” Id. In
support of its contention, AT&T argues that “hierarchy” is a term that is easily
understood by the lay juror; therefore, there is no need to further define the meaning
of the term. Id. AT&T also argues that Geotag’s proposed construction is improper
because the ‘474 Patent requires the geographical areas to be in a hierarchy, and the
proposed construction improperly puts categories into a hierarchy, not geographical
areas. AT&T also argues that the proposed construction is improper because it
includes both “information” and “data” in the hierarchy, while the ‘474 Patent only
puts “information” into a hierarchy. Id. Finally, AT&T argues that the proposed
construction is incorrect because the ‘474 Patent does not provide any support for

- 43 -

Geotag’s proposed language requiring that the information be “ordered from broader
to narrower.” Id. For these reasons, AT&T argues that “hierarchy” should be given its
plain and ordinary meaning. Id.
ii. Court’s Construction of “hierarchy”
The Court is of the opinion that adoption of a construction that reflects
Geotag’s proposed construction of “hierarchy” and the concerns raised by Geotag
more closely reflects the true nature of the invention than simply giving “hierarchy” a
plain and ordinary meaning without further specifying that plain and ordinary
meaning. This construction is also supported by the intrinsic evidence provided to the
Court.
The Court starts by looking at the claim language itself. The language of
Claims 1 and 20 claim refer to a hierarchy of geographical areas; however, these
claims themselves do not impose any limitations onto the actually structure or
meaning of hierarchy. Claim 1 refers to a “hierarchy of geographical areas wherein
entries corresponding to each one of said hierarchy of geographical areas is further
organized into topics.” ‘474 Patent 38:44-47. The claim goes on to state that the
geographical search area “wherein within said hierarchy of geographical areas at least
one of said entries associated with a [broader] geographical area is dynamically
replicated into at least [one] narrower geographical area.” ‘474 Patent 38:52-56.
Claim 20 of the ‘474 Patent describes the hierarchy as a “predetermined hierarchy of
geographical areas comprising at least a geographical area of relatively smaller expanse

- 44 -

and a geographical area of relatively larger expense, said area of larger expanse
including a plurality of areas of smaller expanse.” ‘474 Patent 39:44-49.
The language of Claim 1 provides a different description of hierarchy than that
of Claim 20. The language of Claim 20 is more limiting than that of Claim 1. Claim 1
does not impose any limitations on the nature or structure of the hierarchy. Claim 1
simply recites that the geographical areas are in a hierarchy and that the dynamic
replication of an entry may occur where the entry is dynamically replicated from a
broader area into a narrower area. The fact that the claim does not describe or limit
the hierarchy to anything more than “broader” and “narrower” supports a finding
that the meaning of hierarchy is not limited to a simple tree like structure.
Claim 20, however, presents a different picture of the hierarchy. That claim
limits the hierarchy so that there are larger geographical areas and smaller
geographical areas and each smaller area is incorporated into a larger area. Each larger
area contains multiple smaller areas.
This description of the structure of the hierarchy is more limiting than that of
Claim 1. Whereas, Claim 1 merely refers to broader and narrower geographical areas,
Claim 20 incorporates the limitation that smaller areas are included in larger areas.
While the hierarchy of Claim 20 reflects a hierarchy that is more “tree like,” it also
does not require a tree like hierarchy. For example, there is no requirement that the
smaller areas within the larger areas do overlap. Even more telling is the difference in
the claim language of Claims 1 and 20 that indicates that the meaning of hierarchy is

- 45 -

broad and not limited because the inventors used the term in different ways in the
two claims.
Other claim language also supports this conclusion. Claim 5 of the ‘474 Patent,
which states that the hierarchy “has a structure comprising plural geographical levels
into which the geographical areas are geographically categorized by size to provide a
low level, one or more intermediate levels and a high level, each of the geographical
levels above the lowest level encompassing a plurality of lower level geographical
areas.” ‘474 Patent 38:66-39:5. The Court points out that Claim 5 is a dependent
claim of Claim 1, in which Claim 5 further limits the structure of the hierarchy.
While Claim 1 provides a general description of the hierarchy as containing broader
and narrower areas, Claim 5 further limits the structure of the hierarchy to one where
the geographical areas are structured by size and each smaller size area is
incorporated into a larger sized area. The structure of the hierarchy of dependent
Claim 5 must be more limiting than the structure of independent Claim 1 and any
construction of “hierarchy” must take this into consideration.
The claims go on to describe even more specific hierarchy structures. Claim 6,
which is a dependent claim of Claim 5, goes on to even further limit the structure of
the hierarchy. In particular, Claim 6 provides that the hierarchy contains geographical
areas where the low level is a city, the intermediate level is a territory, and the high
level is a state. ‘474 Patent 39:6-8. A true tree like hierarchical database is not
described by the claims until one reaches Claim 6, which is dependent on Claim 5,

- 46 -

which is even further dependent on Claim 1. The fact that each one of the dependent
claims further imports limitations on the meaning of hierarchy in Claim 1 supports a
broad meaning of the term “hierarchy” as used in Claim 1 of the ‘474 Patent and in
the other claims of the ‘474 Patent.
What is evident from the claim language is that the hierarchy is structured
from broader geographical areas into narrower geographical areas. This limitation is
described in Claim 1, when the claim speaks of dynamically replicating the entries
from broader areas into narrower areas. The dependent Claims 5 and 6 continue on
with the “broader” and “narrower” distinctions between the geographical areas
asserted by Claim 1. Claim 5 requires the areas to be categorized by size, with larger
sizes encompassing smaller sizes. Claim 6 further requires the areas that are cities to
be incorporated into the areas that are territories, which are further incorporated into
the areas that are states. Both Claims 5 and 6 describe broader areas that include
within them narrower areas because smaller areas are certainly narrower than larger
areas and cities are narrower than territories, which are in turn narrower than states.
The same is true for Claim 20, which requires smaller areas to be incorporated into
larger areas, which are broader than the smaller areas. The claim distinctions between
broad areas and narrow areas continue throughout the claim language and must be
considered when construing the meaning of “hierarchy.”
The specifications of the ‘474 Patent also support a construction of the term
“hierarchy” that is consistent with Geotag’s proposed construction. Like the claims,

- 47 -

the specifications generally describe a hierarchy that is limited in its structure in only
that the geographical areas are organized in relatively broader and narrower areas.
The specifications generally describe a “database of information organized into a
hierarchy of geographical areas.” ‘474 Patent at 3:3-4. Such description does not
impose limitations upon the structure of the hierarchy. However, like the claims, the
specifications go on to provide more detailed examples of the possible structures of
the hierarchy. For example, in one possible embodiment the hierarchy has a “…
structure comprising plural geographical levels into which the geographical area are
geographically categorized by size to provide a low level, one or more intermediate
levels and a high level …” (‘474 Patent at 3:19-22); a “… predetermined hierarchy of
geographical areas comprising at least a geographical area of relatively small expanse,
a geographical area of intermediate expanse and a geographical area of relatively large
expanse …” (‘474 Patent at 3:50-54.); “… the databases are organized in a hierarchy
which descends from the most universal to least universal ….” (‘474 Patent at 8:6061.).
The description of hierarchies in the ‘474 Patent specifications are no different
than those of the claims in that they both generally discuss a hierarchy of
geographical areas. They also both provide an understanding that there is no
particular limitation to the structure of the hierarchies of the ‘474 Patent besides
organization in relatively broader and narrower categories. The Court is of the
opinion that any construction of the disputed term must take into account the

- 48 -

manner in which the term is used in both the claims and the specifications and that
Geotag’s proposed construction does so.
The parties also dispute whether or not the hierarchies consist of organized
“information and data” or simply consist of organized “information.” Geotag
proposes that the correct construction includes both information and data. AT&T
proposes that only information be included in the construction.
The Court notes that each disputed claim already contains a limitation about
what is stored within the databases of the invention. Claim 1 requires “…a database
of information organized into a hierarchy of geographical areas…” ‘474 Patent at
38:35-58; Claim 20 requires “… a database of information accessible [by] a
computer, said database of information organized into a predetermine hierarchy of
geographical areas …” Id at 39:41-61; Claim 31 requires “… organizing a database of
on-line information into a plurality of geographical areas ….” Id at 40:43-56. Each of
these claims already provides a limitation regarding what is stored in the database. In
particular, each one requires a database of information. A construction that merely
repeats the term “information” would just repeat the limitation that is already
provided in other claim language. Because this limitation is already included in other
claim language, there is no need to repeat the limitation in the construction of
“hierarchy.” This construction would at best be repetitive and at worst could lead to
jury confusion over the meaning of the claim language. To construe “hierarchy” to
include both “information and data” would make this problem even worse. Such a

- 49 -

construction would not only repeat the “information” limitation it would modify that
limitation by adding “data” into the meaning.
When the Parties requested the Court to determine if the hierarchy is
composed of “information” or if it is composed of “information and data,” the Parties
are really asking the Court to construe the meaning of “information” as it is used in
the ‘474 Patent claims. “Information” as used in the ‘474 may include data. The
Parties did not request that the Court construe “information,” and the Parties did not
provide any substantial briefing or argument on the meaning of “information.” The
Parties requested the Court to construe “hierarchy,” and in this order the Court will
limit its construction to the term “hierarchy.” The Court is of the opinion that the
construction of “hierarchy” should not include the terms “information” or
“information and data” because this limitation is already provided by other claim
language.
Because the only limitation that is imposed on the hierarchy of the claims of
the ‘474 Patent is that the hierarchy be structured into relatively broader and
narrower geographical areas, the hierarchy is not required to have a “tree” like
structure, the claim language already addresses that it is information that is stored
within the database the Court hereby construes “hierarchy” to mean “an arrangement
ordered from broader to narrower.”

G. Construction of the larger dynamically replicated terms

- 50 -

i. Each Party’s Proposed Constructions
In addition to the above phrases and terms, AT&T also requests that the Court
construe what the Parties refer to as the “larger dynamically replicated terms.” These
are three certain larger claim phrases that contain the phrases and terms previously
construed. Geotag contends that no separate construction of these phrases is needed.
The constructions requested by AT&T and its proposed constructions are as follows:
Claim 1 - larger dynamically replicated phrase:
“wherein within said hierarchy of geographical areas at least one of said
entries associated with a [broader] geographical area is dynamically
replicated into at least [one] narrower geographical area” ‘474 Patent at
38:52-56.
Claim 1 - AT&T’s proposed construction:
“wherein within the hierarchy of geographical areas in the database at least
one of the entries associated with a broader geographical area within the
database is automatically inherited within the database, at the time of a
search, into at least one narrower geographical area within the database.”
Claim 20 larger dynamically replicated phrase:
“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” ‘474 Patent at 39:56-59.
AT&T’s proposed construction:
“wherein at least one of the entries in the larger geographical area within
the database is automatically inherited within the database, at the time of a
search, into at least one smaller geographical area within the database”
Claim 31 larger dynamically replicated phrase:

- 51 -

“dynamically replicating an entry from broader geographical area into said
geographical search area” ‘474 Patent at 40:53-54.
AT&T’s proposed construction:
“automatically inheriting within the database, at the time of a search, an
entry from the broader geographical area within the database into the
geographical search area within the database”

AT&T argues that construction of these larger phrases is necessary because it is
necessary to confirm that the various geographical areas are in the database and that
dynamic replication of the entries from a geographical area into the geographical
search area occurs within the database. Defendants’ Responsive Claim Construction
Brief at 6-9. Geotag argues that it is not necessary to construe the larger dynamically
replicating phrases and that AT&T’s proposed construction improperly read
limitations into the claims. Geotag Inc.’s Responsive Claim Construction Brief at 7-8.
The proposed constructions impose the limitation that the geographical areas are
“within the database.” Id.
ii. Court’s Construction of the larger dynamically replicated terms
AT&T’s proposed construction of these phrases does three things. First, they
incorporate AT&T’s proposed constructions of the disputed individual claim
language. Second, they modify the phrases “said geographical area of relatively larger
expanse” and “at least one of said geographical areas of smaller expanse” to,
respectively read “the larger geographical area” and “at least one smaller area.” Third,
they add the “in the database” requirement, which AT&T claims adds clarification
- 52 -

that the dynamic replication occurs within the database and that the various
geographical areas are in the database. Regarding the first change, the inclusion of
AT&T’s other proposed language of disputed terms, the Court notes that it is not
necessary to reconstrue the individual disputed claim terms and phrases. Regarding,
the second change, the modification of the larger and smaller expanse phrases, AT&T
fails to provide any argument why this change should be made; therefore the Court
refuses to include these changes in any construction of these phrases. The real issue is
the third modification, whether or not the larger phrase should be construed so that
they include the “in the database” language.
The dispute is over whether the dynamic replication occurs in the database and
whether the various geographical areas (the hierarchy of geographical areas, broader
geographical area, the narrower geographical area, the geographical search area,
geographical area of relatively larger expanse, and the smaller geographical) are in the
database. AT&T argues that the claim language itself confirms that the dynamic
replication occurs in the database and that the geographic areas are in the database. It
also argues that the Parties are in agreement that at least the “geographic search area”
is within the database. Defendant’s Responsive Claim Construction Brief at 6-8.
Geotag agrees that the “geographic search area” is within the database. Geotag’s
Opening Claim Construction Brief at 19. In addition both Parties are in agreement
that dynamic replication occurs within the database because they have both
submitted proposed constructions of “dynamically replicated” that state that this

- 53 -

occurs within the database. The real dispute is whether or not the other geographical
areas (broader, narrower, larger, and smaller) are within the database.
AT&T argues that these other geographical areas are within the database and
that the claim language supports this interpretation. Specifically, AT&T points to the
claim language that requires that the database contains a hierarchy of geographical
areas and that the other geographical areas are included within that hierarchy.
Defendants’ Responsive Claim Construction Brief at 6-8. As AT&T points out: Claim
1 recites “… a database of information organized into a hierarchy of geographical
areas …” and “… within said hierarchy of geographical areas at least one of said
entries associated with a broader geographical area is dynamically replicated into at
least one narrower geographical area …” (‘474 Patent at 38:35-58); Claim 20 recites
“… said database of information organized into a predetermine hierarchy of
geographical areas comprising at least a geographical area of relatively smaller expanse
and a geographical area of relatively larger expanse …” (Id at 39:41-61); and Claim
31 recites “… organizing a database of on-line information into a plurality of
geographical areas …,” “… 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…,”
and “… dynamically replicating an entry from broader geographical area into said
geographical search area …” (Id at 40:43-56).
The language of Claims 1, 20, and 31 confirm that the other geographical areas
are within the database. The broader and narrower areas of Claim 1 are part of the

- 54 -

hierarchy of geographical areas and that hierarchy is within the database. Likewise,
the relatively smaller and relatively larger geographic areas of Claim 21 and the
geographical areas of Claim 31 are part of the hierarchy or plurality of the
geographical areas that are within the database. In addition to this, the Parties
already agree that dynamic replication occurs within the database. The other
geographical areas described by the claims indicate where entries are dynamically
replicated from and where entries are dynamically replicated to, all of which it is
agreed, occurs within the database. Therefore, the claim language itself requires that
all of the other geographical areas be in the database, just like the geographical search
area is within the database and the dynamic replication occurs within the database.
The Court is not persuaded by Geotag’s argument that a construction of the
larger dynamically replicated terms that includes the “in the database” phrase
improperly reads limitations into the claims. As just discussed, the claim language
itself requires that these areas be in the database; therefore addition of the “in the
database” phrase does not impart any additional limitations into the claim language.
This construction merely clarifies that the other geographical areas are within the
database. Geotag’s argument that the inclusion of the “in the database” language
improperly limits the claim is merely a conclusive statement with no explanation of
why this would improperly limit the claim language. Geotag Inc.’s Opening Claim
Construction Brief at 19; Geotag Inc.’s Responsive Claim Construction Brief at 7-8.

- 55 -

Because the parties agree that dynamic replication occurs in the database, that
the geographical search area is in the database, and the claim language requires the
other geographical areas to be in the database the Court construes the larger
dynamically replicated phrase as follows:
Claim 1 - larger dynamically replicated phrase:
“wherein within said hierarchy of geographical areas at least one of said
entries associated with a [broader] geographical area is dynamically
replicated into at least [one] narrower geographical area”
Claim 1 – Court’s Construction:
“wherein within said hierarchy of geographical areas in the database at
least one of said entries associated with a broader geographical area within
the database is dynamically replicated into at least one narrower
geographical area within the database.”
Claim 20 - larger dynamically replicated phrase:
“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 - Court’s Construction:
“wherein at least one of said entries in said geographical area of relatively
larger expanse, within the database, is dynamically replicated into at least
one of said geographical areas of smaller expanse, within the database”
Claim 31 larger dynamically replicated phrase:
“dynamically replicating an entry from broader geographical area into said
geographical search area” ‘
Claim 31 - Court’s Construction:
- 56 -

“dynamically replicating, an entry from broader geographical area within
the database into said geographical search area”
The Court notes that for the sake of clarity as to the construction of the larger
dynamically replicated phrases, in the above constructions, the Court has not
incorporated the constructions of the other disputed claim language that is construed
within the phrases. Such individual terms or phrases construed herein as they occur
in the larger dynamically replicating phrases shall be incorporated within the larger
phrases to the extent the individual terms are contained within the larger phrases.
IV. Construction of Agreed Terms
The Court notes that the Parties have submitted to the Court certain claim
terms and phrases that the Parties state need to be construed, but the Parties agree as
to the meaning of the terms and phrases. The Court hereby adopts the agreed
constructions proposed by the Parties as described in the Joint Claim Construction
Chart on file with the Court.
SO ORDERED.
Signed June 10th, 2014.
________________________________
ED KINKEADE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

- 57 -

SUMMARY CHART OF CLAIM CONSTRUCTIONS OF PRIORITY TERMS

Construction of Terms of Patent No. 5,930,474
Language of
Disputed Priority
Term of Claims
Claim 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

Plaintiffs’ Proposed
Construction

Defendant’s
Proposed
Construction

Judge’s
Construction

Hierachy

Hierachy

Hierachy

an arrangement of
information or data,
ordered from broader
general catagories to
narrower specific
ones

plain and ordinary
meaning

arrangement ordered
from broader to
narrower

Entries

Entries
listings contained in
the database and that
each includes one or
more fields

listings contained in
the database that
each includes a
collection of fields.

- 58 -

Entries
listings contained in
the database that
each includes a
collection of fields

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 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 [broader]
geographical area is
dynamically
replicated into at
least [one] narrower
geographical area,
said search engine
further configure to
search said topics
within said selected
geographical
search area.

Geographical
Search Area

Geographical
Search Area

Dynamically
Replicated
automatically copied
or inherited within
the database, at the
time needed or
established in
advance

No construction
necessary

the particular
selected geographical
area of the hierarchy
of geographical areas
within the database
for which the
associated entries in
the database are to
be searched

the particular
selected geographical
area within the
database for which
the associated entries
in the database are to
be searched

Dynamically
Replicated

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

Larger Dynamic
Replication Phrase

Geographical
Search Area

Dynamically
Replicated

automatically
inherited within the
database at the time
of the search

automatically
inherited within the
database after
selection of a
geographical search
area

Larger Dynamic
Replication Phrase
wherein within the
hierarchy of
geographical areas in
the database at least
one of the entries
associated with a
broader geographical
area within the
database is
automatically inherited
within the database, at
the time of a search,
into at least one
narrower geographical
area within the
database.”

Claim 20

- 59 -

Larger Dynamic
Replication Phrase
wherein within said
hierarchy of
geographical areas in
the database at least
one of said entries
associated with a
broader geographical
area within the
database is dynamically
replicated into at least
one narrower
geographical area within
the database

A machine for
locating information
organized into
geographically-based
areas, said machine
comprising:
a database of
information
accessible [by] a
computer, said
database of
information
organized into a
predetermine
hierarchy of
geographical areas
comprising at least a
geographical area of
relatively smaller
expanse and a
geographical area of
relatively larger
expanse, said area of
larger expanse
including a plurality
of areas of smaller
expanse and wherein
entries
corresponding to
each said hierarchy of
geographical area is
further organized
into topics; and
a search engine
executing in a
computer and in
communication with
said database, said
search engine
configured to select
at least one
geographical area in
said hierarchy of
geographical areas so
as to define a

Hierachy

Hierachy

Hierachy

an arrangement of
information or data,
ordered from broader
general catagories to
narrower specific
ones

plain and ordinary
meaning

arrangement ordered
from broader to
narrower

Entries
listings contained in
the database and that
each includes one or
more fields

Entries
listings contained in
the database that
each includes a
collection of fields.

Geographical
Search Area

Geographical
Search Area
the particular
selected geographical
area within the
database for which
the associated data
records in the
database are to be
searched

the particular
selected geographical
area of the hierarchy
of geographical areas
within the database
for which the
associated entries in
the database are to
be searched

- 60 -

Entries
listings contained in
the database that
each includes a
collection of fields

Geographical
Search Area
the particular
selected geographical
area within the
database for which
the associated entries
in the database are to
be searched

geographical search
area 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,
said search engine
further configured to
search said topics
within said
geographical area.

Dynamically
Replicated

Dynamically
Replicated
automatically copied
or inherited within
the database, at the
time needed or
established in
advance
Larger Dynamic
Replication Phrase

A method for
locating on line
information
comprising the steps
of:
organizing a database
of on-line
information into a
plurality of
geographical areas
having a plurality of
entries associated
therewith;
organizing said
entries
corresponding to said
plurality of
geographical areas
into one or more

automatically
inherited within the
database at the time
of the search

automatically
inherited within the
database after
selection of a
geographical search
area

Larger Dynamic
Replication Phrase
wherein at least one of
the entries in the larger
geographical area within
the database is
automatically inherited
within the database, at
the time of a search,
into at least one smaller
geographical area within
the database

No construction
necessary

Claim 31

Dynamically
Replicated

Larger Dynamic
Replication Phrase
wherein at least one of
said entries in said
geographical area of
relatively larger expanse,
within the database, is
dynamically replicated
into at least one of said
geographical areas of
smaller expanse, within
the database

Geographical
Search Area

Geographical
Search Area

Geographical
Search Area

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

the particular
selected geographical
area of the hierarchy
of geographical areas
within the database
for which the
associated entries in
the database are to
be searched

the particular
selected geographical
area within the
database for which
the associated entries
in the database are to
be searched

Dynamically
Replicating

Dynamically
Replicating

automatically
copying or inheriting
within the database,
at the time needed or
established in

automatically
inheriting within the
database at the time
of the search

- 61 -

Dynamically
Replicating
automatically
inheriting within the
database after
selection of a
geographical search
area

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 broader
geographical area into
said geographical search
area; and
displaying said topics
associated with said
geographical search
area.

advance
Entry/Entries

Entry/Entries

Entry/Entries

listing(s) contained
in the database and
that (each) includes
one or more fields

listing(s) contained
in the database that
each includes a
collection of fields.

listing(s) contained
in the database that
(each) includes a
collection of fields

Larger Dynamic
Replication Phrase

Larger Dynamic
Replication Phrase

Larger Dynamic
Replication Phrase

No construction
necessary

automatically inheriting
within the database, at
the time of a search, an
entry from the broader
geographical area within
the database into the
geographical search area
within the database

dynamically replicating,
an entry from broader
geographical area within
the database into said
geographical search area

- 62 -