Free Claim Construction Opening Brief - District Court of Delaware - Delaware

Case 1:04-cv-01231-SLR

Document 112-2

Filed 11/04/2005

Page 1 of 33

Not Reported in F.Supp.2d Not Reported in F.Supp.2d, 2004 WL 2429843 (D.Or.) (Cite as: 2004 WL 2429843 (D.Or.))

Page 1

constructions. Motions, Pleadings and Filings Only the Westlaw citation is currently available. This Court has had the opportunity to previously oversee the adjudication of these two patents in two cases, unrelated to the present case, brought by plaintiff against ApplyYourself, Inc. In case number CV-02-484-HU, plaintiff brought infringement claims against ApplyYourself related to the '278 patent. In case number CV-02-1359-HU, plaintiff brought infringement claims against ApplyYourself related to the '042 patent. The cases were consolidated and were tried to a jury in August and September 2003. As part of that litigation, I construed some claims in both patents. CollegeNET v. ApplyYourself, No. CV-02-484-HU, Opinion (D.Or. Dec. 19, 2002) (construing claims in the '278 patent); CollegeNET v. ApplyYourself, Nos. CV-02484- HU, CV-02-1359-HU, Opinion (D.Or. July 7, 2003) (construing claims in both patents). I refer to my previous constructions as discussed below. BACKGROUND AND OVERVIEW OF THE INVENTIONS I. The '278 Patent As described in the patent itself, students applying to colleges and universities typically complete a separate paper application for each institution to which they seek admission. Exh. A to Sec. Am. Compl. (Col. 1, lines 19-21). [FN1] The applicant then mails each application to the corresponding institution along with a fee. 1:21-23. FN1. References to the '278 patent will be to this exhibit and will be denoted simply by the column and line number referred to, such as 1:19-21. Many institutions prefer Internet applications. 1:2425. One problem with such applications, however, is that the student is required to re-enter the same information for each subsequent application to a different institution or to the same institution perhaps for a different academic term. Additionally, the institution cannot change the application form without revising the source code that creates the application form, making changes expensive and inconvenient. 1:26-34. One way to reduce the redundancy for the applicant would be to allow students to complete a single,

United States District Court, D. Oregon. COLLEGENET, INC., a Delaware corporation, Plaintiff, v. XAP CORPORATION, a Delaware corporation, Defendant. No. CV-03-1229-HU. Oct. 29, 2004. Kristin L. Cleveland, Scott E. Davis , Jared S. Goff, Michael N. Zachary, Klarquist Sparkman, LLP, Portland, Oregon, for Plaintiff. Alexander C. Johnson, Stephen S. Ford, Marger, Johnson & McCollum, P.C., Portland, Oregon, Daniel Johnson, Jr., Henry C. Su, Fenwick & West LLP, Mountain View, California, for Defendant. FINDINGS & RECOMMENDATION HUBEL, Magistrate J. *1 Plaintiff CollegeNET, Inc. brings this patent infringement action against defendant XAP Corporation. Plaintiff is the owner of two patents: United States Patent Number 6,345,278 B1 ("the '278 patent), and United States Patent Number 6,460,042 ("the '042 patent). In its Second Amended Complaint, plaintiff brings two claims of patent infringement, one for each of the two patents. Plaintiff also brings a claim for declaratory judgment related to a September 10, 2003 press release published by plaintiff, as well as two claims for unfair competition. Defendant raises affirmative defenses of noninfringement, invalidity, and unenforceability. Defendant additionally counterclaims for declaratory judgments of noninfringement, invalidity, and unenforceability. Finally, defendant also brings claims for unfair competition. Presently, the parties seek construction of various terms of the two patents. This Findings & Recommendation contains my recommended claim

© 2005 Thomson/West. No Claim to Orig. U.S. Govt. Works.

Case 1:04-cv-01231-SLR

Document 112-2

Filed 11/04/2005

Page 2 of 33
Page 2

Not Reported in F.Supp.2d Not Reported in F.Supp.2d, 2004 WL 2429843 (D.Or.) (Cite as: 2004 WL 2429843 (D.Or.)) generic application form provided by a third party who would then transmit the application to any designated institution. 1:35-38. The drawback to such a system is that the institution cannot customize its application form. 1:38-48. *2 As described by plaintiff, a typical applicant would use the patented invention by first viewing a college's website and proceeding to the admissions web page. The student would typically be using a personal computer that was running a web browser to access the website. Somewhere in the on-line admissions materials, there is a prompt for applying on line. Clicking on this would lead the student through a series of instruction pages and ultimately to a "log on" page where the student establishes a user ID and a password. Next, the student would receive a prompt which would say something like "Application" or "Apply Now." When the student clicks on this prompt, the browser on the student's computer sends a request over the Internet to the third party servicer's web server. The forms engine processes the request. The request itself would identify the specific college application form being requested and the student who is requesting it. The forms engine then creates a copy of the requested application form for the student. The forms engine can create a copy of the college's application form in a variety of ways. The forms engine queries the database to determine whether the particular student has information stored that corresponds to any of the fields in the newly requested application form. If it is that student's first application with the third party servicer's system, there will be no stored information. If the student has previously filled out other application forms, the forms engine will identify the like fields and obtain data from the database. The forms engine will merge the retrieved data into the corresponding form data fields on the application form. The forms engine will then provide the application form to the student, sending it from the web server over the Internet. The student then enters personal information into the form data fields. When the student clicks "save" or "save and go to next page," the browser will send the information entered by the student and post it to the third party servicer's web server. The forms engine then stores the information into the database. Once the student has completed the form, the student can hit the "transmit" or "send application to school"

prompt. It is then possible for the forms engine to perform a "data validation" check on the application. For example, Lewis & Clark College may specify that the "high school attended" and "SAT scores" are required fields and that it will not accept application forms in which those fields are left blank. In addition, error-checking criteria may be specified, such as the "SAT score" must be between 200 and 800. The forms engine compares the data entered by the student for these fields and determines whether they are filled in and whether any specified criteria are met. If the criteria are met, the data is "valid" and will be further processed. If not, the system will send back to the student, over the Internet, an errorcorrection form or message that the student must change entries for the fields that did not meet the prescribed criteria. *3 Once the application is complete, the student can also select a payment method to "e-pay" the school's application fee. Next, the same student may want to fill out a second application to a different college or university. The student logs on to that school's website and follows the application prompts. The forms engine creates an application form for the student. Assuming both colleges use plaintiff's services, and because the student has previously filled out a form, information regarding that student is already stored in the database. The forms engine will retrieve information required for the second application that the student has already entered on the first application. The forms engine then automatically inserts the previously stored information required by the second application, into the form data fields of the second application form and sends it back to the student over the Internet.... The student will fill in the remaining blanks of the form, then "save" it. His or her data will then be sent over the Internet and posted to the web server. The forms engine will then store the data in the database. II. The '042 Patent The '042 patent is a continuation patent of the '278 patent. Exh. B to Sec. Am. Compl. (Col. 1, lines 4-5). [FN2] FN2. References to the '042 patent will be to this exhibit and will be denoted simply by the column and line number referred to, such as 1:4-5.

© 2005 Thomson/West. No Claim to Orig. U.S. Govt. Works.

Case 1:04-cv-01231-SLR

Document 112-2

Filed 11/04/2005

Page 3 of 33
Page 3

Not Reported in F.Supp.2d Not Reported in F.Supp.2d, 2004 WL 2429843 (D.Or.) (Cite as: 2004 WL 2429843 (D.Or.)) The abstract of the patent explains the patent as follows: A forms engine allows data sharing between customizable on-line forms, such as college admissions applications. Before applying, an applicant opens an account with a third party application servicer. After the applicant completes an application for one institution, the data is saved in a data base and automatically populates fields in subsequent application forms. The form for each institution is created from a form description file. Each form is branded for its institution and forms for different institutions differ in appearance and content so that the presence of the third party servicer is transparent to the applicant. The system is extensible without programming, allowing new applicant attributes to be readily incorporated into the system and allowing the content and appearances of the application to be readily changed by changing the description file. The use of aliases for applicant attributes permits data to be readily shared between forms even though labeled and arranged differently on different forms. Information stored about each attribute allows the specification of data validation rules and data sharing and grouping rules, as well as dependency rules that permit application page content to depend on applicant's responses on a previous page. Exh. B to Sec. Am. Compl. at p. 1. The attributes of the '042 patent are fairly consistent across the independent claims and include the following general features: (1) presenting a customized form to an applicant; (2) allowing the applicant to enter user and payment information; (3) receiving the user and payment information; (4) processing the user and payment information; and (5) sending the user information back to the institution in a format specified by the institution. *4 The dependent claims further define the form in various ways: (1) as having multiple pages, as seen in claims 6, 21, 33, and 43; (2) providing for data validation at the client computer or after each page of the multiple page application is posted, as seen in claims 7, 8, 10, 11, 14, 22, 23, 25, 27, 30, and 33; (3) providing for f rther data validation at the server u level or when the application is completed, as seen in claims 8, 10, 11, 12, 14, 23, 25, 27, 28, 30, 34, and 35; and (4) providing for automatic data population between multiple application forms, as seen in claims 4, 19, 36, 37, and 41. CLAIM CONSTRUCTION STANDARDS

The first step in any validity or infringement analysis is to construe the claims. See, e.g., Smiths Indus. Med. Sys., Inc. v. Vital Signs, Inc., 183 F.3d 1347, 1353 (Fed.Cir.1999) ("the first step in any validity analysis is to construe the claims of the invention to determine the subject matter for which patent protection is sought"); Markman v. Westview Instruments, Inc., 52 F.3d 967, 976 (Fed.Cir.1995) (en banc) (first step in two-step patent infringement analysis is to determine "the meaning and scope of the patent claims asserted to be infringed[, ... ] commonly known as claim construction or interpretation[.]"), aff'd, 517 U.S. 370 (1996). The meaning of a term in a patent claim is a matter of law to be resolved by the court. Markman, 517 U.S. at 389-91. Claims should be interpreted, when reasonably possible, to preserve their validity. Modine Mfg. Co. v. United States Int'l Trade Comm'n, 75 F.3d 1545, 1556 (Fed.Cir.1996). In construing a claim, the court should first look to the intrinsic evidence, that is, the claims themselves, the written description portion of the specification, and the prosecution history. Bell & Howell Document Mgmt. Prods. Co. v. Altek Sys., 132 F.3d 701, 705 (Fed.Cir.1997). Generally, claim construction begins with the words of the claim. K-2 Corp. v. Salomon S.A., 191 F.3d 1356, 1363 (Fed.Cir.1999). It is standard practice that in determining the proper construction of an asserted claim, the court looks first to the intrinsic evidence--the patent specification, including of course the written description, and, if in evidence, the prosecution history. Absent an express definition in the specification of a particular claim term, the words are given their ordinary and accustomed meaning; if a term of art, it is given the ordinary and accustomed meaning as understood by those of ordinary skill in the art. Zelinski v. Brunswick Corp., 185 F.3d 1311, 1315 (Fed.Cir.1999); see also Georgia-Pacific Corp. v. United States Gypsum Co., 195 F.3d 1322, 1332 (Fed.Cir.) ("The specification of the patent in suit is the best guide to the meaning of a disputed term."), amended, 204 F.3d 1359 (Fed.Cir.1999). Terms in a claim are given their ordinary meaning to one skilled in the art unless it appears from the patent and prosecution history that the inventor used them differently. A patentee may be his own lexicographer, but any special definition given to a word must be clearly defined in the specification or file history. Vitronics Corp. v. Conceptronic, Inc., 90 F.3d 1576,

© 2005 Thomson/West. No Claim to Orig. U.S. Govt. Works.

Case 1:04-cv-01231-SLR

Document 112-2

Filed 11/04/2005

Page 4 of 33
Page 4

Not Reported in F.Supp.2d Not Reported in F.Supp.2d, 2004 WL 2429843 (D.Or.) (Cite as: 2004 WL 2429843 (D.Or.)) 1582 (Fed.Cir.1996). *5 Additionally, a claim term should generally be read so as not to exclude the inventor's device or the inventor's preferred embodiment. See, e.g., id. at 1581 (claim interpretations excluding the preferred embodiment are heavily disfavored); Modine Mfg., 75 F.3d at 1550 ("[A] claim interpretation that would exclude the inventor's device is rarely the correct interpretation[.]"). While examining the patent specification is appropriate, it is improper to import, or "read in" to a claim, a limitation from the specification's general discussion, embodiments, and examples. See, e.g., Intel Corp. v. United States Int'l Trade Comm'n, 946 F.2d 821, 836 (Fed.Cir.1991) ("Where a specification does not require a limitation, that limitation should not be read from the specification into the claims.") (internal quotation omitted); Constant v. Advanced Micro-Devices, Inc., 848 F.2d 1560, 1571 (Fed.Cir.1988) ("Although the specification may aid the court in interpreting the meaning of disputed language in the claims, particular embodiments and examples appearing in the specification will not generally be read into the claims."). It is also improper to eliminate, ignore, or "read out" a claim limitation from a claim in order to extend a patent to subject matter disclosed, but not claimed. See, e.g., Ethicon Endo-Surgery, Inc. v. United States Surgical Corp., 93 F.3d 1572, 1582-83 (Fed.Cir.1996) (court cannot read a limitation out of a claim); see also Unique Concepts, Inc. v. Brown, 939 F.2d 1558, 1562 (Fed.Cir.1991) (patentee cannot be allowed to expressly state throughout specification and claims that his invention includes a limitation and then be allowed to avoid that claim limitation in infringement suit by pointing to one part of specification stating an alternative lacking the specification). Claims are not limited to the preferred embodiment. CVI/Beta Ventures, Inc. v. Tura LP, 112 F.3d 1146, 1158 (Fed.Cir.1997) ("as a general matter, the claims of a patent are not limited by preferred embodiments."); see also Amhil Enters., Ltd. v. Wawa, Inc., 81 F.3d 1554, 1559 (Fed.Cir.1996) ("A preferred embodiment ... is just that, and the scope of a patentee's claims is not necessarily or automatically limited to the preferred embodiment."). Finally, when intrinsic evidence is unambiguous, it is improper for the court to rely on extrinsic evidence to contradict the meaning of the claims. See Pitney

Bowes, Inc., v. Hewlett-Packard Co., 182 F.3d 1298, 1308-9 (Fed.Cir.1999). If, after considering the intrinsic evidence, a claim term is ambiguous, a court may look to extrinsic evidence to assist in determining the meaning or scope of terms in a claim. Vitronics, 90 F.3d at 1584. Extrinsic evidence includes expert testimony, inventor testimony, and technical treatises or articles. Id. Extrinsic evidence cannot, however, alter the clear meaning of a claim arising from the patent or prosecution history. Id. DISCUSSION I. Terms Proposed for Construction by Plaintiff *6 Plaintiff seeks the construction of three claim terms or phrases: (1) automatically; (2) file; and (3) "processing by the third party forms servicer an electronic payment associated with the form." A. Automatically The term "automatically" appears in claims 1, 9, 12, 13, 14, 21, and 32 of the '278 patent, and in claims 4, 19, 36, and 38 of the '042 patent. In each instance, the term modifies one of three functions: populate, insert, or store. The term principally appears as "automatically" and occasionally as "automatic." This different use is immaterial to the construction of the term. I previously construed the term in the December 19, 2002 Opinion in the ApplyYourself case. Dec. 19, 2002 Op. at pp. 10-29. Plaintiff's proposed construction is the same as the construction I adopted there. I agree with defendant that the constructions adopted in the ApplyYourself case are not controlling here. Texas Instruments, Inc. v. Linear Techs. Corp., 182 F.Supp.2d 580, 586 (E.D.Tex.2002) (court's claim construction by another judge in same district in prior suit did not collaterally estop unrelated defendant from obtaining new claim construction; independent review of the claims would ensure fairness to all parties). Nonetheless, while the previous claim constructions do not have preclusive effect here, to the extent neither party raises new arguments, I defer to the prior claim constructions. KX Indus., L.P. v. PUR Water Purification Prods., Inc., 108 F.Supp.2d 380, 387 (D.Del.2000), aff'd, 2001 WL 902507 (Fed.Cir.2001). Additionally, even in the presence of new arguments, I give "considerable weight" to my previous claim constructions. See Colby v. J.C. Penney Co., 811 F.2d 1119, 1123 (7th Cir.1987) (under the principles of stare decisis "a court must

© 2005 Thomson/West. No Claim to Orig. U.S. Govt. Works.

Case 1:04-cv-01231-SLR

Document 112-2

Filed 11/04/2005

Page 5 of 33
Page 5

Not Reported in F.Supp.2d Not Reported in F.Supp.2d, 2004 WL 2429843 (D.Or.) (Cite as: 2004 WL 2429843 (D.Or.)) give considerable weight to [its own previous decisions] unless and until they have been overruled or undermined by the decisions of a higher court, or other supervening developments, such as a statutory overruling"). The construction of "automatically" that I adopted in the ApplyYourself case is: "Once initiated, the function is performed by a machine, without the need for manually performing the function." Dec. 19, 2002 Op. at p. 29. Defendant does not oppose this construction, but contends that because the term modifies different functions, the construction of the term must be made specifically in the context of the claim limitation in which it appears. I disagree. "Automatically" describes how the function is to be performed. There is no suggestion from the claim language that the nature of that performance depends on the particular function being performed. Furthermore, generally, the same meaning is ascribed to the same claim term. Omega Eng'g, Inc. v. Raytek Corp., 334 F.3d 1314, 1334 (Fed.Cir.2003) ("[W]e presume, unless otherwise compelled, that the same claim term in the same patent or related patents carries the same construed meaning."). Here, there is no compelling reason to construe "automatically" as it appears in each separate claim limitation. Thus, I recommend adoption of the prior construction of "automatically." B. File *7 This term appears in claims 30 and 32 of the '278 patent. I previously construed the term to mean "[a]n electronically stored collection of information that has a unique name." Dec. 19, 2002 Op. at pp. 30-32. Plaintiff contends that I should adopt the same construction here. Defendant states that while it has no objection to this construction, the term should be construed in the context of the claim in which it appears. The term appears in the context of the phrase "application information file," in claim 32 of the '278 patent. But, it appears independently in claim 30 of the ' 278 patent, and it was separately construed in the ApplyYourself case. Given that it appears independently in at least one claim, it warrants its own independent construction, divorced from the "application information file" phrase. Accordingly, I recommend adoption of the prior construction. C. "Processing by the Third Party Forms Servicer an Electronic Payment Associated With the Form"

This phrase appears in independent claims 1, 16, and 32 of the '042 patent. In its entirety, the claim phrase reads: "processing by the third party forms servicer an electronic payment associated with the form, the processed payment being from the form user to the one of the multiple institutions to which the form is directed[.]" 35:29-32; 36:45-48; 37:63-67. Both parties seek construction of this phrase, although defendant adds some additional claim phrases related to the "electronic payment function." For efficiency, I address all proposed constructions related to the electronic payment function, here. The proper construction of this claim phrase was vigorously contested in the ApplyYourself case. After briefing and oral argument, I construed the phrase as follows: Using the received payment information to facilitate the clearance, settlement, and/or transfer of the electronic payment. The processing function includes, but is not limited to, processing by the business entity hosting the forms engine software and excludes any processing by any public form user or any of the institutions of higher education. July 7, 2003 Op. at pp. 25, 45-55. Plaintiff argues for the adoption of this previous construction. Plaintiff additionally argues for the adoption of two terms within this claim phrase which I construed in the ApplyYourself case: (1) "electronic payment": "An electronic transfer of funds, such as an electronic check, credit card or debit card payment. The term electronic payment does not include a fee waiver." (2) "form": "A structured document having a collection of fields for entering and containing data. The form may be rendered to a user on a client computer or any web-browser enabled graphical display." Id. at p. 25. Defendant does not dispute the prior construction of "electronic payment." In the ApplyYourself case, I concluded that the construction of "electronic payment" as "an electronic transfer of funds, such as an electronic check, credit card or debit card payment [and] does not include a fee waiver[,]" was appropriate because it was consistent with the claim language. July 7, 2003 Op. at p. 45. That same reasoning applies here. Accordingly, I recommend adherence to the prior construction for "electronic payment." *8 Defendant proposes a different construction for "form": "an electronic document having fields for the entry and display of data, which consists of one or more pages." Curiously, while defendant offers this

© 2005 Thomson/West. No Claim to Orig. U.S. Govt. Works.

Case 1:04-cv-01231-SLR

Document 112-2

Filed 11/04/2005

Page 6 of 33
Page 6

Not Reported in F.Supp.2d Not Reported in F.Supp.2d, 2004 WL 2429843 (D.Or.) (Cite as: 2004 WL 2429843 (D.Or.)) alternative construction, it makes no mention of the previous construction. Defendant points to two parts of the '278 patent specification in support of its proposed construction of "form." First, defendant notes that the specification states that "[t]he present invention comprises a universal forms engine that permits the creation and processing of customizable electronic forms and selective sharing of information between the customized forms." 2:1- 4. Based on this, defendant argues that "form" means an electronic document. Next, defendant points to the specification's statement that "[a] form is considered to be essentially a container for data and implies an associated process." 2:22-23. Then, defendant notes that moreover, several claims of the '278 patent describe a form as having fields for the entry of information. 22:40-41, 22:57-58, 25:7-8, 26:11-13. Next, because several of the dependent claims in the '278 patent refer to multiple form pages and multiple pages, 24:37-40, 25:53-54, 26:61, 26:64, defendant argues that the construction of "form" should include that the electronic document consists of one or more pages. Thus, defendant's proposal reads: "an electronic document having fields for the entry and display of data, which consists of one or more pages." I recommend rejecting defendant's proposed construction of "form ." The word "electronic" is not necessary because first, it is redundant in that some uses of the word "form" in the patent claims and specification are preceded by "electronic." Second, my previous construction, by discussing how the form may be rendered to the user, implicitly defines "form" as being electronic. Also, the construction does not need to expressly state that a form is one or more pages because by construing the word without reference to any page limitation, none is suggested. Furthermore, the characteristic of multiple pages is expressed in dependent claims. Cases hold that generally, limitations of dependent claims are not normally read into the independent claim from which they depend. Karlin Tech., Inc. v. Surgical Dynamics, Inc., 177 F.3d 968, 971-72 (Fed.Cir.1999). Finally, I agree with plaintiff that there is no support for the inclusion of the word "display" in the construction of form. The specification provides that "a form is considered to be essentially a container for data and implies an associated process." 2:22-23. As such, plaintiff argues that a "display" requirement is

not inherent in the meaning of the word form, nor is it required by the specification. I agree with plaintiff that while other claim language may suggest that the "form" is displayed, the term "form" itself does not. Therefore, I recommend rejecting defendant's proposed construction of "form" and adhering to the previous construction. *9 As to the larger claim phrase at issue, defendant suggests that in addition to the claim phrase quoted above regarding electronic payments, other claim phrases related to the electronic payment function need to be construed. Defendant cites to the following claim language: "receiving by the third party forms servicer over the computer network ... electronic payment information entered by the user." This phrase appears in claims 1, 16, and 32 of the '042 patent. 35:26-28; 36:42-44; 37:60-62. Defendant also proposes that the slightly different language in claim 38 be construed: "receiving from the form user via the third party form servicer an electronic payment associated with the customized form[.]" 38:54-56. Defendant offers separate constructions for five subparts of the originally construed phrase quoted at the beginning of this section and the additional phrases quoted in the preceding paragraph. The subparts proposed for construction are: (1) "processing ... an electronic payment associated with the form"; (2) "receiving ... electronic payment information"; (3) "by the third party forms servicer"; (4) "via the third party form servicer"; and (5) "entering payment information." 1. "By the Third Party Forms Servicer" Because the central dispute in regard to this electronic payment phrase concerns the phrase "by third party forms servicer," I start with it. The heart of the dispute regarding this claim phrase in the ApplyYourself case was whether the entire function of processing the electronic payment had to be exclusively performed by the third party forms servicer itself or whether the third party forms servicer could contract with another party to perform the function. July 7, 2003 Op. & Ord. at pp. 44-55. I rejected the argument that the function had to be performed exclusively by the third party forms servicer. Thus, my claim construction indicates that the processing function includes processing by the business entity hosting the forms engine software, but that the processing is not limited to that entity. Defendant here contends that my prior construction was in error.

© 2005 Thomson/West. No Claim to Orig. U.S. Govt. Works.

Case 1:04-cv-01231-SLR

Document 112-2

Filed 11/04/2005

Page 7 of 33
Page 7

Not Reported in F.Supp.2d Not Reported in F.Supp.2d, 2004 WL 2429843 (D.Or.) (Cite as: 2004 WL 2429843 (D.Or.))

Defendant raises arguments similar to those raised by the defendant in ApplyYourself and which I considered and rejected. For example, defendant points to Figure 15 in the '042 patent as demonstrating that the payment processing occurs inside the forms engine operated by the third party forms servicer. But, as explained in the July 7, 2003 Opinion, this argument "fails to account for the fact that a fourth entity must be involved in the processing of an electronic payment because of the nature of all electronic payments." July 7, 2003 Op. at p. 53. Because the electronic payment function requires a financial intermediary which authenticates credit cards and verifies account balances and two banks, the function necessitates the involvement of entities other than the forms engine host. Id. at pp. 53-54. Even if the business entity hosting the forms engine were to acquire the ability to perform the credit card clearinghouse function, the electronic payment processing function still requires the participation of two banks whose functions cannot be delegated to a non-bank entity. Id . at p. 54. Thus, reliance on Figure 15 is unpersuasive. *10 In the July 7, 2003 Opinion, I also addressed the defendant's argument that because the claim language provides that the third party forms servicer receives and processes both user information and electronic payment information and because the business entity hosting the forms engine is the third party forms servicer entity which processes the user information, it must be that same entity that processes the payment information. I rejected this argument in favor of plaintiff's argument that because these are "comprising claims," nothing in the claim language precludes another party from taking part in the processing of electronic payments. As I explained: However, plaintiff notes that these are "comprising" claims which recite required steps and elements, but which do not preclude additional steps or elements. Vehicular Techs. Corp. v. Titan Wheel Int'l, Inc., 212 F.3d 1377, 1382-83 (Fed.Cir.2000) ("The phrase 'consisting of' is a term of art in patent law signifying restriction and exclusion while, in contrast, the term 'comprising' indicates an open-ended construction.... In simple terms a drafter uses the phrase 'consisting of' to mean 'I claim what follows and nothing else.' A drafter uses the term 'comprising' to mean 'I claim at least what follows and potentially more." ') (citations omitted); Georgia-Pacific Corp. v. United States Gypsum Co., 195 F.3d 1322, 1327-28 (Fed.Cir.1999) (use of the word "comprising" means including the elements that follow, but not

excluding additional, recited elements). Plaintiff argues that because these are "comprising" claims, nothing in the claim language precludes another party from taking part in the processing of electronic payments. Plaintiff contends that as "comprising" claims, the claims merely require that the third party forms servicer include the business entity hosting the forms engine as a party involved in the processing of payments, but not the sole party performing that function. I agree with plaintiff. Although the claim language noted by defendant requires the "third party forms servicer" to "receive" both user and payment information and then to "process" both user and payment information, it does not, by itself, limit the interpretation of "third party forms servicer" to the forms engine host business entity nor does it preclude that entity from utilizing a fourth party to participate in the "processing." I note that the parties themselves define "processing" to include "facilitation" of the electronic payment. This suggests that the role of the "third party forms servicer" is not restricted to the actual performance of the processing function, but may include a facilitator capacity. Given the nature of a "comprising" claim, additional elements may be part of the claim. Accordingly, based on the claim language, I interpret the disputed phrase "processing by the third party forms servicer," to mean that the processing function, as previously construed by the parties, includes, but is not limited to, processing by the business entity hosting the forms engine software and excludes any processing by any public form user or any of the institutions of higher education. *11 July 7, 2003 Op. at pp. 48-49. Defendant in the present case renews the argument made by the defendant in ApplyYourself and suggests that I misinterpreted the law regarding "comprising" claims. I disagree. Defendant primarily relies on Moleculon Research Corp. v. CBS, Inc., 793 F.2d 1261 (Fed.Cir.1986). There, the court rejected Moleculon's argument that "comprising" language opened the patent claim and its individual method steps to additional structural elements in addition to opening the claim to additional steps. Id. at 1271. The court concluded that Moleculon's position was too broad. Id. The court held that while a transitional term such as "comprising" or, as in the present case, "which comprises," does not exclude additional unrecited elements, or steps (in

© 2005 Thomson/West. No Claim to Orig. U.S. Govt. Works.

Case 1:04-cv-01231-SLR

Document 112-2

Filed 11/04/2005

Page 8 of 33
Page 8

Not Reported in F.Supp.2d Not Reported in F.Supp.2d, 2004 WL 2429843 (D.Or.) (Cite as: 2004 WL 2429843 (D.Or.)) the case of a method claim), ... the transitional phrase does not, in the present case, affect the scope of the particular structure recited within the method claim's step. Id. Defendant also cites to a 1997 case for the proposition that " '[c]omprising' is a term of art used in claim language which means that the named elements are essential, but other elements may be added and still form a construct within the scope of the claim." Genentech, Inc. v. Chiron Corp., 112 F.3d 495, 501 (Fed.Cir.1997). Defendant relies on these cases to argue that the term "comprising" cannot be used to read out the claim limitation's express requirement that processing an electronic payment be performed by a third party forms servicer. Defendant argues that the open-ended "comprising" term permits the inclusion of additional steps, which may or may not be performed by additional actors, but it cannot alter or abrogate the express requirement that the third party forms servicer, i.e., the same entity responsible for processing the forms, actually perform the payment processing step. Deft's Op. Cl. Constr. Brief at p. 29. What defendant fails to recognize is that the prior construction requires the business entity hosting the forms engine to retain responsibility for processing the electronic payment. The construction mandates processing by the business entity hosting the form (e.g. the third party forms servicer that also processes the user information) but allows some processing steps related to electronic payments to be performed by another entity, except the public form user or any of the institutions of higher education. Thus, the prior interpretation is consistent with the law regarding "comprising" claims because it keeps the "named element" of having the third party forms servicer that also processes the user information, process the electronic payment information, but it allows the extra step of a fourth entity participating in such processing along with that third party forms servicer. I fundamentally disagree with defendant's argument that all of the electronic payment function process must be performed by the host of the forms engine. That entity must perform some, but not all, of the electronic payment function. Accordingly, I recommend adhering to the prior construction for the reasons initially explained in the July 7, 2003 Opinion and expressed herein. 2. "Via the Third Party Forms Servicer"

*12 This phrase appears in claim 38 of the '042 patent. Defendant proposes the following construction: "[t]he institution taking possession of funds in its account through an electronic transfer of those funds from the form user, where the funds that are being transferred to the institution from the user have come by way of or by means of the third party form servicer." To the extent this phrase requires construction at all, I construe it consistently with my previous construction in the ApplyYourself case and consistently with the construction for "by the third party forms servicer" discussed in the preceding section. That is, the third party forms servicer, because it is required to be involved in the processing function as described above, may ultimately transfer the funds from the user to the institution, but other portions of the payment processing function may have been performed by a separate entity so long as it is not the user/applicant or the institution. 3. "Processing ... an Electronic Payment Associated with The Form" Defendant proposes the following construction for this claim phrase: "[s]ubjecting an electronic payment associated with the form to[,] or handling an electronic payment associated with the form through[,] an established and routine set of procedures for effecting an electronic transfer of funds, including procedures for authorization, clearance and settlement." Since "electronic payment" and "form" have already been addressed, the only remaining term in this phrase actually needing construction is "processing." Plaintiff proposes that "processing" in the context of the payment function be construed as "the manipulation of data within a computer system." Defendant argues that the term means " 'to subject to a special process or treatment (as in the course of manufacture" ' or " 'to subject to or handle through an established usu. routine set of procedures[.]" ' Deft's Op. Cl. Constr. Brief at pp. 25-26 (quoting Merriam Webster's Collegiate Dictionary 929 (10th ed.1994)). Thus, defendant's proposed construction for this claim phrase uses the terms "subjecting ... to[,] or handling ... through[,] an established and routine set of procedures[.]" Defendant contends that because the claim specifies that the third party forms servicer processes an electronic payment rather than electronic payment information as recited in the previous limitation regarding the receipt by the third party forms servicer

© 2005 Thomson/West. No Claim to Orig. U.S. Govt. Works.

Case 1:04-cv-01231-SLR

Document 112-2

Filed 11/04/2005

Page 9 of 33
Page 9

Not Reported in F.Supp.2d Not Reported in F.Supp.2d, 2004 WL 2429843 (D.Or.) (Cite as: 2004 WL 2429843 (D.Or.)) of electronic payment information entered by the user, the term "processing" as used in the phrase "processing by the third party forms servicer an electronic payment associated with the form," means something more than "processing" information or data. Defendant also contends that if "processing" means only the manipulation of data within a computer system, then the stated and claimed goal in the subsequent claim limitation which recites "relieving the institution of the administrative burden of processing forms and payments," would n be ot achieved. *13 I disagree with defendant. First, the distinction between "electronic payment" and "electronic payment information" does not support defendant's construction. Under the claim language, an "electronic payment" gets "processed" while "electronic payment information" gets "received." Thus, there is no basis to conclude that the term "processing" when used with "electronic payment" means anything more than "the manipulation of data within a computer system." The previous function is restricted to receiving information which requires no manipulation of data. Second, I reject defendant's argument that "manipulation of data within a computer system" is insufficient to relieve the institution of processing forms and payments. "Manipulation" is a broad term and is not confined, in this construction, to a narrow task. Accordingly, I recommend that plaintiff's proposed construction for "processing" be adopted. 4. "Receiving by the Third Party Forms Servicer Over the Computer Network User Information and Electronic Information Entered by the User" Defendant proposes the following construction: "[t]he third party forms servicer takes possession of the electronic payment information entered by the user, but need not do anything with it." Defendant notes that the act of "receiving" is passive and stands in contrast to "processing" which requires the third party forms servicer to do something. I agree with defendant and conclude that this proposed construction is supported by the claim language. I also note that defendant's argument in regard to this phrase underscores my reasoning in regard to the construction of the term "processing." I recommend that defendant's proposed construction of the "receiving" phrase be adopted.

5. "Entering Payment Information Onto the Form" Dependent claims 2 and 17 of the '042 patent provide a limitation in which the payment information entered by a user is entered onto the form. Defendant contends that the claims refer, as their antecedent basis, to the form claimed in independent claims 1 and 16, respectively. Thus, defendant argues, entering the payment information onto the form must mean "entering the payment information in some designated data field(s) of the form generated by the forms engine program and customized in its appearance and content in accordance with the preferences of the institution." I agree with defendant that this construction is a fair interpretation of the claim language and I recommend that it be adopted. II. Terms Proposed for Construction by Defendant Defendant groups its constructions into six different functions performed by the invention covered by the two patents. One of these groups addresses all of the claim limitations directed at the "electronic payment function." As noted above, the preceding discussion of plaintiff's proposed construction of "processing by the third party forms servicer an electronic payment associated with the form," includes a discussion of defendant's proposed constructions for the "electronic payment function" and there is no need to further address those constructions. *14 The remaining five functions are: (1) forms engine; (2) user information database; (3) no rewriting of code; (4) forms processing; and (5) relief from administrative burden. In addition, defendant proposes constructions for two miscellaneous terms: (1) metadata; and (2) relational database. A. Forms Engine Function 1. "Application Form" and "Application" "Application" appears in claims 1 and 32 of the '278 patent and in claim 26 of the '042 patent. "Application form" appears in claims 1 and 32 of the '278 patent and in claim 39 of the '042 patent. Defendant proposes slightly different constructions for each term. Defendant argues that "application form" should be construed as "a form representing an application for admission to a higher education institution." Defendant bases its proposal on the preamble to

© 2005 Thomson/West. No Claim to Orig. U.S. Govt. Works.

Case 1:04-cv-01231-SLR

Document 112-2

Filed 11/04/2005

Page 10 of 33
Page 10

Not Reported in F.Supp.2d Not Reported in F.Supp.2d, 2004 WL 2429843 (D.Or.) (Cite as: 2004 WL 2429843 (D.Or.)) claim 1 of the '278 patent which recites: "[a] method of creating and processing over a computer network forms representing applications to different higher education institutions [.]" 22:34-36. Defendant argues that because the preamble indicates that claim 1 is directed to a method that results in application forms to "higher education institutions," the construction of "application form" must include a reference to such institutions. In contrast, defendant proposes the following for the construction of "application": "[a] form representing an application to an institution." Defendant notes that because the preamble of claim 32 of the '278 patent refers only to "applications to institutions" and not "forms" for "applications" to "institutions of different higher education institutions," "application" must be construed more broadly to refer to all "institutions." Plaintiff argues that neither of these terms need to be construed because they carry only their ordinary meaning and not a technical or special meaning. In such cases, construction is not necessary. Defendant suggests that the district court must construe every term proposed for construction by a party. Defendant's cited authority does not support this proposition. In Sulzer Textil A.G. v. Picanol N.V., 358 F.3d 1356, 1366 (Fed.Cir.2004), the court held that "the district court must instruct the jury on the meanings to be attributed to all disputed terms used in the claims in suit so that the jury will be able to intelligently determine the questions presented." Id. (internal quotation omitted). That statement, however, was made in the context of resolving the question of whether a district court must instruct the jury on all the constructions it actually rendered. Id. at 1365-66. The court did not consider the question of whether a claim term which appears to be used in its ordinary sense, and not in any particular technical or scientific sense, must be construed simply because one party requests its construction. While claim terms "must be construed as they would be understood by a person of ordinary skill in the art to which the invention pertains," and thus, "[w]hat the claim terms would mean to laymen is irrelevant[,]" Searfoss v. Pioneer Consol. Corp., 374 F.3d 1142, 1149 (Fed.Cir.2004), if a person of ordinary skill in the art would understand the term in its ordinary, everyday sense, there is no need to construe the term. E.g., Biotec Biologische Naturverpackungen GmbH & Co. KG v. Biocorp, Inc., 249 F.3d 1341, 1349 (Fed.Cir.2001) (district court did not err when it declined to construe "melting" when the meaning of "melting" did not

depart from its ordinary meaning or otherwise require construction); Appelra Corp. v. MicrosMass, UK, Ltd., 186 F.Supp.2d 487, 524, 526 (D.Del.2002) (court declined to construe terms "maintain," "maintaining," and a "whereby" clause because they were clear on their face and the meaning was "selfevident"); Zip Dee, Inc. v. Dometic Corp., 63 F.Supp.2d 868, 872 (N.D.Ill.1998) (rejecting defendant's "artificial construct" of the term "tension" because no construction beyond the "ordinary English language meaning of the term" was required and thus, the patent's "references to 'tension" ' [would] go to the jury without the interposition of any judicial gloss."). *15 Both "application" and "application form" are easily understood terms which the patents use in their ordinary sense. Neither the claim language nor the specification suggests that the meaning is anything other than the form used to apply to an institution or an institution of higher education. To the extent any construction is needed, I agree with plaintiff that it should be limited to "a form corresponding to an application." I further conclude that only the term "application" needs the construction. "Application form" needs no further construction because it already clearly communicates its ordinary, everyday meaning in its own words. To apply the construction for "application" to "application form" would be an exercise in redundancy. Additionally, there is no support in the claim language to restrict "application form" to an admissions application. The term "admissions" is not used to modify "application form" in claim 1 of the '278 patent. The specification of the '042 patent indicates that although the preferred embodiment of the invention is directed toward admissions forms, the invention may be used for "processing many different types of forms." 9:25. Finally, I reject defendant's suggestion that "application form" is restricted to applications to "institutions of higher education" while "application" corresponds to the broader "institutions." The only reference to institutions of higher education is in the preamble to claim 1 of the '278 patent. It does not appear anywhere else in that claim and it does not appear in claim 32 of the '278 patent or in claim 39 of the '042 patent, claims which also refer to "application form." Generally, "[l]anguage in a preamble limits a claim where it breathes life and meaning into the claim, ... but not where it merely

© 2005 Thomson/West. No Claim to Orig. U.S. Govt. Works.

Case 1:04-cv-01231-SLR

Document 112-2

Filed 11/04/2005

Page 11 of 33
Page 11

Not Reported in F.Supp.2d Not Reported in F.Supp.2d, 2004 WL 2429843 (D.Or.) (Cite as: 2004 WL 2429843 (D.Or.)) recites a purpose or intended use of the invention." Innova/Pure Water, Inc. v. Safari Water Filtration Sys., Inc., 381 F.3d 1111, 1118 (Fed.Cir.2004) (citation omitted). In this case, the reference to "institutions of higher education" in the preamble is only a recitation of a purpose or intended use and adds no separate meaning to the claim. Accordingly, I recommend that plaintiff's proposed construction of "a form corresponding to an application," be adopted for the term "application." 2. "Institution" This term appears in claims 1, 21, and 32 of the '278 patent and in claims 1, 16, 32, and 38 of the '042 patent. Defendant proposes it be construed as "an established organization or corporation." Defendant's construction is based on a definition from Merriam Webster's Collegiate Dictionary 606 (10th ed.1994). Plaintiff argues that the term needs no construction because it is used only in its ordinary meaning. I agree with plaintiff that because the term is used only in its plain, customary meaning and there is no technical or scientific meaning ascribed to it, providing a construction for the term simply adds unnecessary complexity. 3. "Creating" or "Generating" *16 One or both of these terms appear in claims 1, 2, 21, and 32 of the '278 patent, and in claim 1 of the '042 patent. Defendant again relies on Merriam Webster's Collegiate Dictionary to construe the terms as "bringing into existence." I agree with plaintiff that because these terms are used only in their ordinary, everyday sense, there is no need to construe them. 4. "In Response to a Request" This term appears in claims 1, 21, and 32 of the '278 patent and claims 1, 19, and 36 of the '042 patent. Defendant states that both "response" and "request" have their common, everyday meanings. Nonetheless, defendant proposes that the phrase be construed as "in reaction of an instance of a user asking for that form." Plaintiff argues that the phras e needs no construction as it is readily understandable without further elaboration. I agree with plaintiff that the phrase need not be construed because even as defendant notes, the words are used in their ordinary, plain meaning. 5. "Providing" and "Transmitting"

"Providing" is seen in claims 1 and 32 of the '278 patent and in claims 1, 16, 32, and 38 in the '042 patent. For example, in claim 1 of the '278 patent, it is used as follows: "providing to the applicant over a computer network the first application form[.]" 22:42-43. "Transmitting" appears in claims 6, 27, and 32 of the '278 patent. For example, in claim 32, it is used as follows: "transmitting the customized application over a computer network to a requesting applicant[.]" 26:17-18. For "providing," defendant seeks the following construction: "making the generated form available to the user." For "transmitting," defendant proposes: "sending the generated form to the user." Defendant relies on Merriam Webster's Collegiate Dictionary for its proposed constructions. Plaintiff argues that the terms "providing" and "transmitting" are everyday words used in their ordinary, everyday sense and thus, they need no construction. I agree with plaintiff. I further agree with plaintiff that neither the claim language nor the specification requires the construction to include the object of the action, e.g. "the generated form", or to whom it is directed, e.g. "the user." For example, if defendant's construction of "transmitting" were used, the claim phrase "transmitting the customized application over a computer network to a requesting applicant" in claim 32 of the '278 patent, would read: " 'sending the generated form to the user' the customized application over a computer network to a requesting applicant." I agree with plaintiff that this makes the claim limitation unreadable. 6. "Forms Engine Program" and "Forms Generator" Claim 21 of the '278 patent and claim 1 of the '042 patent refer to the software program that generates a response to a request from a user. Claim 21 of the '278 patent provides: "a forms engine program operating on the server computer for generating a form from the form description information[.]" 25:35. Claim 1 of the '042 patent states: "... the form being generated by a forms generator that generates multiple forms corresponding to multiple institutions of higher education, the forms generator generating forms that are ..." 35:11-14. *17 Defendant proposes one construction for both phrases: "a software program responsible for performing, among other tasks, the creation or generation of multiple forms corresponding to multiple institutions." Plaintiff proposes separate, but

© 2005 Thomson/West. No Claim to Orig. U.S. Govt. Works.

Case 1:04-cv-01231-SLR

Document 112-2

Filed 11/04/2005

Page 12 of 33
Page 12

Not Reported in F.Supp.2d Not Reported in F.Supp.2d, 2004 WL 2429843 (D.Or.) (Cite as: 2004 WL 2429843 (D.Or.)) simpler phrases: "A software program that can be used to generate a form" for the term "forms engine program" and "a software program that can be used to generate forms" for the term "forms generator." Both parties' proposals incorporate the phrase "a software program." I agree with the parties that the phrase "forms engine" is used in the technical, computing sense to mean "a software program." I further agree, as is seen in both parties' proposals, that the phrase "forms engine program" can generally be understood as a software program that creates or generates forms. Plaintiff contends that defendant's proposal inappropriately inserts "among other tasks" which suggests that the forms engine program and forms generator are required to perform unspecified other tasks, other than generating forms. I agree with plaintiff that the claim language and specification does not support a construction suggesting that the forms engine program or forms generator must be able to perform other tasks. While the forms engine program or forms generator may actually be able to do so, the claims do not mandate the performance of other tasks. The disclosed function for forms engine program and forms generator appears limited to generating forms. I agree with defendant that the construction for both terms properly includes the reference to "multiple forms corresponding to multiple institutions." Plaintiff notes that in claim 21, the term "forms engine program" is used only in conjunction with the generation of a form, in the singular, not multiple forms. Dependent claim 23 in the '278 patent discusses a forms engine program that can generate more than one form. But, plaintiff argues, the requirement that it generate more than one form does not derive from the phrase "forms engine program" itself, but from additional language in the claim. I disagree with plaintiff. The preamble to claim 21 provides for "[a] system for creating an processing customized forms for unrelated institutions." 24:5253. This establishes that the purpose of the claim is to create more than one form. Each step in the claim discusses "form" in the singular because the system generates only one form at a time. But, the invention, to fulfill its purpose, must include a forms generator or forms engine program that generates multiple forms. The whole point of the invention is that a single forms generator or forms engine program can generate forms for multiple institutions and populate subsequent forms with data stored from earlier forms.

A construction of "forms generator" and "forms engine program" without the requirement of generating multiple forms for multiple institutions would exc lude the invention. *18 This distinguishes this reference to the preamble from the one discussed above in connection with the terms "application" and "application form." There, the preamble's reference to "institutions of higher education" was not a separate claim limitation because it merely recited a purpose of the invention. Here, while the use of the plural "forms" also indicates a purpose of the forms engine program, the plural term is required for the forms generator and forms engine program to have any meaning which comports with the invention. Notably, defendant's proposed construction does not require that the forms engine program or the forms generator generate multiple forms simultaneously. The requirement is only that the forms engine program or forms generator be able to generate more than one form, not that it do so at the same time. Thus, I recommend that the terms "forms engine program" and "forms generator" both initially be construed to mean "a software program which creates or generates multiple forms corresponding to multiple institutions." Finally, although perhaps not obvious in the proposed constructions of these phrases, the briefing reveals that the parties dispute whether "a software program" as used in the construction of "forms generator" and "forms engine program" is a single program or multiple programs. Defendant contends that the "forms engine program" or "forms generator" is a single program that generates multiple forms corresponding to multiple institutions. Defendant relies on a reference in claim 1 of the '042 patent to "a forms generator" in the singular, "that generates multiple forms ..." 35:12-14 (emphasis added). Defendant also notes that the prosecution history reveals that one of the named inventors differentiated the invention disclosed in the '278 patent from an earlier version of the system called "ApplyWeb I," by noting that ApplyWeb I required a separate software program for each application form for each school. Exh. A to Deft's Op. Cl. Constr. Brief. [FN3] Thus, defendant contends, the invention disclosed in the patents in suit must be to a single program. FN3. I request that in the future, defendant paginate all exhibits and refer to specific pages of an exhibit when citing to it.

© 2005 Thomson/West. No Claim to Orig. U.S. Govt. Works.

Case 1:04-cv-01231-SLR

Document 112-2

Filed 11/04/2005

Page 13 of 33
Page 13

Not Reported in F.Supp.2d Not Reported in F.Supp.2d, 2004 WL 2429843 (D.Or.) (Cite as: 2004 WL 2429843 (D.Or.))

Plaintiff counters this argument by noting that the word "a", as used in defendant's proposed construction "a software program" is typically understood to mean "one or more" in patent claims. Tate Access Floors, Inc. v. Interface Architectural Resources, Inc ., 279 F.3d 1357, 1370 (Fed.Cir.2002). Thus, by using "a software program," the construction means one or more programs. Plaintiff also notes that it is common for a "program" to include other "code," which may also be considered a "program," or to call upon other "programs," containing certain functions, with the "programs" working together to create a desired result. Plaintiff argues that as long as the "forms engine program" or "forms generator" is involved in the generation process, the claim language is satisfied. Plaintiff also contends that nothing in the plain language of the claim deviates from this typical understanding or requires the "forms engine program" or "forms generator" to be the only software included in the form generation. *19 Plaintiff argues that as long as the "forms engine program" or "forms generator" is involved in the generation process, the claim language is satisfied. Plaintiff also contends that nothing in the plain language of the claim deviates from this typical understanding or requires the "forms engine program" or "forms generator" to be the only software included in the form generation. Furthermore, plaintiff argues, the intrinsic evidence contradicts defendant's position. In the preferred embodiment, the "forms engine" operates in concert with other software such as the web server software and the database management system software. Plaintiff argues that while the specification states that the "preferred implementation of the invention comprises a single forms engine program ...", this statement is limited to the preferred implementation and implies that implementations using more than one forms engine are possible. I agree with plaintiff. Because the forms generator or forms engine program may use other code or programs to actually generate the form, and because it generates the form only in tandem with the web server and the database management software, it cannot be restricted to a single program. While it could be just a single software program that generates the forms, it should not be confined to a single program. Thus, I recommend that the following

construction be adopted for "forms generator" and "forms engine program": "a software program, which, with or without additional software programs, creates or generates multiple forms corresponding to multiple institutions." 7. "Form Description Information," "Application Description Information," and "Application Information File" While defendant proposes different constructions for these three terms, I consider them together because they are related. "Form description information" appears in claim 21 of the '278 patent as follows: "first data storage in communication with the server computer and including form description information specifying the content and appearance of each customized form [.]" 24:59-62. The phrase appears again in that claim: "a forms engine program operating on the server computer for generating a form from the form description information in response to a request for the form transmitted ..." 25:3-5. "Application description information" appears in dependent claim 2 of the '278 patent: "[t]he method of claim 1 in which creating a first application form customized in accordance with the preferences of the first institution includes generating a first application in accordance with stored application description information ..." 23:16-20. Defendant proposes parallel constructions for these two terms. First, for the "form description information" phrase, defendant proposes the following construction: "information describing a form that is sufficient to enable the forms engine program to generate the described form." For "application description information," defendant proposes: "information describing an application form that is sufficient to enable the forms engine program to generate the described application form." Defendant notes that the '278 patent specification uses "form information" and "application information" interchangeably to describe the information stored in the application data file. 5:6163; 6:19-22. Accordingly, defendant contends that the two phrases should be similarly construed. *20 Plaintiff does not disagree that "form description information" and "application description information" should receive parallel constructions. But, plaintiff contends that there is no reason not to adopt the construction I gave "form description information" in the ApplyYourself case and then use

© 2005 Thomson/West. No Claim to Orig. U.S. Govt. Works.

Case 1:04-cv-01231-SLR

Document 112-2

Filed 11/04/2005

Page 14 of 33
Page 14

Not Reported in F.Supp.2d Not Reported in F.Supp.2d, 2004 WL 2429843 (D.Or.) (Cite as: 2004 WL 2429843 (D.Or.)) that as the basis for the parallel construction of "application description information." The construction I rendered in the ApplyYourself case for "form description information" was "the information used to customize a form." July 7, 2003 Op. at