Case 1:19-cv-00859-RTH Document 88 Filed 06/01/22 Page 1 of 28
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF FEDERAL CLAIMS
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`E-NUMERATE SOLUTIONS, INC. and
`
`E-NUMERATE, LLC,
`Plaintiffs,
`
`
`
`v.
`
`THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
`
`
`Defendant.
`
`
`
`
`C.A. No. 19-859-RTH
`
`PLAINTIFFS’ REPLY CLAIM CONSTRUCTION BRIEF
`
`Dated: June 1, 2022
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`/s/ Sean T. O’Kelly
`Sean T. O’Kelly
`Gerard M. O’Rourke
`O’KELLY & O’ROURKE, LLC
`824 N. Market Street, Suite 1001A
`Wilmington, DE 19801
`302-778-4000
`sokelly@okorlaw.com
`gorourke@okorlaw.com
`
`Attorneys for Plaintiffs
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:19-cv-00859-RTH Document 88 Filed 06/01/22 Page 2 of 28
`
`
`
`Table of Contents
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................... 1
`
`II. ARGUMENT........................................................................................................................... 2
`
`A. The ‘355 Patent .................................................................................................................... 2
`
`‘355 Patent – Term 2 – tag/tags ............................................................................................... 4
`
`‘355 Patent, Term 3 - macro .................................................................................................... 5
`
`‘355 Patent, Term 4 “transform the series of numerical values…” ......................................... 6
`
`‘355 Patent, Term 5: “generating at least one second title” .................................................... 6
`
`‘355 Patent term 6: the step of receiving ................................................................................. 7
`
`‘355 Patent, Term 7: “report” .................................................................................................. 7
`
`B. The ‘816 Patent .................................................................................................................... 9
`
`‘816 patent, Term 4: “automatically transforming…common format” .................................. 9
`
`‘816 patent Terms 5 – 9 ......................................................................................................... 10
`
`‘816 Patent, Term 10: “characteristic of the numerical value” ............................................. 10
`
`C. The ‘383 Patent .................................................................................................................. 11
`
`‘383 Patent, Term 1: “first tags reflecting characteristics” ................................................... 11
`
`‘383 Patent, Term 2, “second tags reflecting characteristics” ............................................... 11
`
`‘383 Patent, Term 3: “tag/tags” ............................................................................................. 11
`
`‘383 Patent, Term 4: “wherein the first tags…semantic tags…” .......................................... 11
`
`
`
`i
`
`

`

`Case 1:19-cv-00859-RTH Document 88 Filed 06/01/22 Page 3 of 28
`
`‘383 Patent, Term 5: “semantic tag/semantic tags” ............................................................... 11
`
`‘383 Patent Term 6: “automatic transformation…common unit of measure” ...................... 11
`
`‘383 Patent, Term 7: “capable of including…” ..................................................................... 12
`
`‘383 Patent, Term 8: “rule” ................................................................................................... 12
`
`‘383 Patent, Term 9: “presentation” ...................................................................................... 14
`
`‘383 Patent, Term 10: “report” .............................................................................................. 14
`
`‘383 Patent, Term 11: “multiple hierarchical relationships between two lines items…” .... 14
`
`‘383 Patent, Term 12: “capable of including…” ................................................................... 15
`
`‘383 Patent, Terms 13 – 16 .................................................................................................... 15
`
`D. The ‘384 Patent .................................................................................................................. 16
`
`‘384 Patent, Term 1: “values” ............................................................................................... 16
`
`‘384 Patent, Term 2: “data structure” .................................................................................... 16
`
`‘384 Patent, Term 3: identify one of more indications…tagging…semantic tags ............... 17
`
`‘384 Patent, Term 4: “one or more computer-readable semantic tags” ................................ 17
`
`‘384 Patent, Term 5: “semantic tags” .................................................................................... 17
`
`‘384 Patent, Term 6: “presentation” ..................................................................................... 17
`
`‘384 Patent, Term 7: “report” ............................................................................................... 17
`
`E.
`
`‘748 Patent ......................................................................................................................... 17
`
`‘748 Patent, Term 1, “data values/values” ............................................................................ 17
`
`‘748 Patent, Term 2: “computer-readable semantic tags…” ................................................. 17
`
`
`
`ii
`
`

`

`Case 1:19-cv-00859-RTH Document 88 Filed 06/01/22 Page 4 of 28
`
`‘748 Patent, Term 3: “semantic tags” .................................................................................... 17
`
`‘748 patent, Term 4: “capable of including…” .................................................................... 18
`
`‘748 patent, Term 5: “multiple hierarchical relationships…” ............................................... 18
`
`‘748 patent, Term 6: “rule”.................................................................................................... 18
`
`‘748 patent, Terms 7 – 12 ...................................................................................................... 18
`
`‘748 Patent, Term 13: “presentation” ................................................................................... 18
`
`‘748 Patent, Term 14 ............................................................................................................. 18
`
`‘748 Patent, Term 15: “report” ............................................................................................. 18
`
`‘748 Patent, Term 16: “code for outputting…” .................................................................... 18
`
`F. The ‘842 Patent .................................................................................................................. 19
`
`‘842 Patent, Term 1: “data values” ........................................................................................ 19
`
`‘842 Patent, Term 2, “plurality of computer readable semantic tags…” .............................. 19
`
`‘842 Patent, Term 3, “semantic tags” .................................................................................... 19
`
`‘842 Patent, Term 4, “capable…multiple hierarchical relationships…” ............................... 19
`
`‘842 Patent, Term 5, “multiple hierarchical relationships…” ............................................... 19
`
`‘842 Patent, Term 6: “rule” ................................................................................................... 19
`
`G. The ‘337 Patent .................................................................................................................. 20
`
`‘337 Patent, Term 1: “values” ............................................................................................... 20
`
`‘337 Patent, Term 2: “computer-readable semantic tags…” ................................................. 20
`
`‘337 Patent, Term 3: “semantic tags” .................................................................................... 20
`
`
`
`iii
`
`

`

`Case 1:19-cv-00859-RTH Document 88 Filed 06/01/22 Page 5 of 28
`
`‘337 Patent, Term 4: “presentation” ...................................................................................... 20
`
`‘337 Patent, Term 5: “report” ................................................................................................ 20
`
`‘337 Patent, Term 6: “markup language” .............................................................................. 20
`
`H. The ‘708 Patent .................................................................................................................. 21
`
`‘708 Patent, Term 1: “data values” ....................................................................................... 21
`
`‘708 Patent, Term 2: “computer-readable semantic tags…” ................................................ 21
`
`‘708 Patent, Term 3: “semantic tags” ................................................................................... 21
`
`‘708 Patent, Term 4: “capable…multiple hierarchical relationships…” .............................. 21
`
`‘708 Patent, Term 5: “multiple hierarchical relationships…” .............................................. 21
`
`‘708 Patent, Term 6: “rule” .................................................................................................. 21
`
`‘708 Patent, Term 7: “report” ............................................................................................... 21
`
`III. CONCLUSION .................................................................................................................. 21
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`iv
`
`

`

`Case 1:19-cv-00859-RTH Document 88 Filed 06/01/22 Page 6 of 28
`
`Table of Authorities
`
`Cases
`
`Acumed LLC v. Stryker Corp., 483 F.3d 800, 806 (Fed.Cir.2007) ............................................... 20
`
`Advanced Fiber Tech. (AFT) Tr. v. J&L Fiber Servs., Inc., 674 F.3d 1365, 1373 (Fed. Cir. 2001)
`
` ................................................................................................................................................... 11
`
`Apple Inc. v. MPH Techs. Oy, 28 F.4th 254, 261 (Fed. Cir. 2022) ..................................... 9, 10, 17
`
`Arthrex, Inc. v. Smith & Nephew, Inc., 935 F.3d 1319, 1330 (Fed. Cir. 2019) ...................... 14, 18
`
`Barnes & Noble, Inc. v. LSI Corp., 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 48524 (N.D. Cal. April 7, 2014) ... 22,
`
`23
`
`Beacon Adhesives, Inc. v. United States, 134 Fed. Cl. 26, 33 (2017) ............................................. 8
`
`Bell Atl. Network Servs. v. Covad Communs. Group, 262 F.3d 1258 (Fed. Cir. 2001)...... 7, 13, 18
`
`Biagro Western Sales, Inc. v. Grow More, Inc., 423 F.3d 1296, 1304 (Fed. Cir. 2005) ................ 9
`
`Finjan, Inc. v. Secure Computing Corp., 626 F.3d 1197, 1204 (Fed. Cir. 2010) ......................... 18
`
`Hilgraeve Corp. v. Symantec Corp., 265 F.3d 1336, 1343 (Fed. Cir. 2001) ................................ 18
`
`Intel Corp. v. U.S. Int'l Trade Comm'n, 946 F.2d 821, 832 (Fed. Cir. 1991) ............................... 18
`
`Interdigital Commc’ns, Inc. v. U.S. Int’l Trade Comm’n, 601 F. App’x 972, 979 (Fed. Cir. 2015)
`
`................................................................................................................................................. 14, 19
`
`KCJ Corp. v. Kinetic Concepts, Inc., 223 F.3d 1351, 1356 (Fed. Cir. 2000) ................................. 9
`
`Liebel-Flarsheim Co. v. Medrad, Inc., 358 F.3d 898, 913 (Fed. Cir. 2004) ........................... 13, 19
`
`Netcraft Corp. v. eBay, Inc., 549 F.3d 1394, 400 n.1 (Fed. Cir. 2008) ........................................ 19
`
`SuperSpeed, LLC v. Google, Inc., 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 4479 (S.D. Tex. January 14, 2014) .. 22
`
`Vitronics Corp. v. Conceptronic, 90 F.3d 1576, 1583 (Fed. Cir. 1996) ................................... 8, 21
`
`Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Science & Eng'g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803, (Fed.Cir.1999) ................... 20
`
`
`
`v
`
`

`

`Case 1:19-cv-00859-RTH Document 88 Filed 06/01/22 Page 7 of 28
`
`
`
`
`
`I.
`
` INTRODUCTION
`
`e-Numerate’s constructions are fully consistent with the claim language, specifications,
`
`and prosecution histories of the asserted patents. The Government’s proposed constructions are
`
`not.
`
`With regard to the “tag” limitations, e-Numerate’s construction comports with the
`
`explicit teachings in the specification that the tags use multiple attributes to describe the meaning
`
`of numbers. e-Numerate’s construction is also consistent with the Federal Circuit’s canon of
`
`claim construction that plural terms are presumed to mean “two or more.” In contrast, the
`
`Government advocates for a construction that encompasses “one or more attributes” even though
`
`the claim language of the independent claims does not use any of the conventional claim
`
`language signifying “one or more.” Specifically: “a characteristic”, “at least one characteristic”,
`
`and/or “one or more characteristics.”
`
`With regard to the “report” and “rule” limitations, the Government seeks to
`
`impermissibly limit claims to preferred embodiments in the specification and ignores the
`
`doctrine of claim differentiation. To address these fatal criticisms of its claim constructions, the
`
`Government’s response is always the same: (1) it relies on Bell Atl. Network Servs. v. Covad
`
`Communs. Group, 262 F.3d 1258 (Fed. Cir. 2001), notwithstanding the unique facts of that case;
`
`and (2) it argues that claim differentiation should not apply while citing readily distinguishable
`
`authority. Neither argument has any merit.
`
`Finally, with regard to the “multiple hierarchical relationships between two line items”
`
`limitation, the Government devotes over five pages of its brief in an attempt to extricate itself
`
`from a fundamental flaw in its claim construction. Specifically, that its claim construction
`
`
`
`1
`
`

`

`Case 1:19-cv-00859-RTH Document 88 Filed 06/01/22 Page 8 of 28
`
`excludes conventional tree structures that are explicitly taught as preferred embodiments in the
`
`specifications of the patents-in-suit. It is hornbook patent law that a claim construction that
`
`excludes a preferred embodiment is “rarely, if ever correct,” and requires highly persuasive
`
`evidentiary support that is simply not present here. Vitronics Corp. v. Conceptronic, 90 F.3d
`
`1576, 1583 (Fed. Cir. 1996). The Government’s claim construction should be rejected outright.
`
` This is e-Numerate’s Reply Brief on Claim Construction.
`
`II.
`
`ARGUMENT
`
`
`
`Each of the patents and claim terms will be addressed in order.
`
`A. The ‘355 Patent
`
`‘355 Patent – Term 1 – “Series of numerical values … tags indicating characteristics…”
`
`The Government’s proposal to give the term “characteristics of the numerical values” its
`
`supposed “ordinary meaning” makes no sense in light of the claim language and the
`
`specification. It is well-settled that patent claim terms and phrases are read from the perspective
`
`of a person of ordinary skill in the art (“POSITA”). Beacon Adhesives, Inc. v. United States, 134
`
`Fed. Cl. 26, 33 (2017). Here, a POSITA reading the specification and claims would readily
`
`understand that the “characteristics” describe the meaning of the numerical values, and not
`
`merely how numbers are displayed (e.g., bolded or italicized). In short, the independent claims
`
`of the ‘355 patent (e.g., claim 1) make clear that the claim is describing a mathematical operation
`
`performed on numerical values using their “characteristics.”
`
`The Government’s assertion that the specification teaches use of “attributes” to describe
`
`formatting in an HTML (i.e., display) sense distorts the teachings of the specification.
`
`
`
`2
`
`

`

`Case 1:19-cv-00859-RTH Document 88 Filed 06/01/22 Page 9 of 28
`
`Government Brief (“G.Br.”) at 8. In particular, col. 24, lines 50 – 60, illustrates how a computer
`
`uses the “precision” attribute in a markup language tag to determine how a number appears in a
`
`numerical sense (e.g., 8254.43 vs. 8,300), and not whether something is merely bolded or
`
`italicized as was done with HTML.1
`
`Recognizing the glaring deficiencies of its arguments, the Government alternatively
`
`advocates that the claims should encompass “one or more attributes” in the markup language
`
`tags. However, this ignores longstanding legal presumptions used to construe claim language.
`
`Specifically, the Federal Circuit presumes that use of the plural indicates “more than one.”
`
`Apple Inc. v. MPH Techs. Oy, 28 F.4th 254, 261 (Fed. Cir. 2022)(“In accordance with common
`
`English usage, we presume a plural term refers to two or more items”)(emphasis supplied).
`
`Similarly, the Government’s construction also ignores that there are conventional ways to
`
`claim “1 or more” that were not used in the claims. For example, "'a' or 'an' in patent parlance
`
`carries the meaning of 'one or more' in open-ended claims containing the transitional phrase
`
`'comprising.'" KCJ Corp. v. Kinetic Concepts, Inc., 223 F.3d 1351, 1356 (Fed. Cir. 2000).
`
`Similarly, the phrase "at least one" in patent claims typically is construed to mean "one or more."
`
`Biagro Western Sales, Inc. v. Grow More, Inc., 423 F.3d 1296, 1304 (Fed. Cir. 2005). Explicitly
`
`claiming “one or more” would also have the same effect. However, none of that was done here.
`
`In light of this, the Government advocates that the claims could be read to encompass one or
`
`more attributes. However, the passages cited by the Government (col. 21, lines 31 – 33 and col.
`
`
`1 The Government’s assertion that e-Numerate has not pointed to a disavowal of the phrase
`“characteristics of the numerical values” misses the mark. Here, a POSITA reading the ‘355
`patent in its entirety would readily understand that there is a distinction between conventional
`HTML tags and the claimed “tags indicating characteristics of the numerical values” because of
`the “Background,” working example (col. 20, lines 18 – 64), and Appendices in the
`specification.
`
`
`
`3
`
`

`

`Case 1:19-cv-00859-RTH Document 88 Filed 06/01/22 Page 10 of 28
`
`17, lines 57 – 60) do not compel such a construction. Moreover, those passages are equally
`
`consistent with e-Numerate’s proposed construction. Indeed, the claims recite “characteristics of
`
`the numerical values,” which signifies more than one attribute. Apple Inc., 28 F.4th at 261.
`
`Moreover, when e-Numerate wanted to use a conventional phraseology to indicate “one or
`
`more,” it did so. Claim 27 of the related ‘816 patent specifies “the request indicating at least one
`
`characteristic of the numerical value” and “wherein at least one of the tags has the indicated
`
`characteristic of the requested numerical value.” Thus, the doctrine of claim differentiation
`
`supports e-Numerate’s construction as well.2
`
`The Government attacks e-Numerate’s construction by asserting that an attribute can disclose
`
`more than one “characteristic.” Br. at 10. That, too, is wrong. While a tag can contain multiple
`
`attributes, each of those attributes only describes one specific characteristic of the number. Thus,
`
`the example used by the Government of “$” as currency, magnitude of “3”, and y-axis title “$ in
`
`Thousands” are three separate attributes.
`
`Finally, the Government faults e-Numerate for using the word “explain” in its definition
`
`instead of the word “describe.” That is a distinction without a difference. The Court could
`
`choose either word in its construction and there would be no material difference in meaning.
`
`‘355 Patent – Term 2 – tag/tags
`
`
`2 The Government has no leg to stand on vis-à-vis claim 27 of the ‘816 patent. As a result, the
`Government simply says claim differentiation should not apply without more. That is wrong,
`especially given that the disputed phraseology appears differently in both claims and is ripe for
`the application of the claim differentiation doctrine.
`4
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:19-cv-00859-RTH Document 88 Filed 06/01/22 Page 11 of 28
`
`Here, the parties are in agreement that the word “tags” should be construed as “markup
`
`language tags.”3 The Government, however, wants the Court to define “markup language” in the
`
`definition when that term does not appear in the claim. That is contrary to Federal Circuit
`
`precedent that cautions against construing terms not in claims. See, e.g., Advanced Fiber Tech.
`
`(AFT) Tr. v. J&L Fiber Servs., Inc., 674 F.3d 1365, 1373 (Fed. Cir. 2001). Engaging in a
`
`derivative claim construction is appropriate only when the correct claim construction
`
`“necessitates” a derivative construction of a non-claim term. Id. That is not the case here
`
`because even the Government characterizes such a construction as “beneficial,” and not
`
`“necessary.” Moreover, “markup language” is a claim term explicitly used in the ‘337 patent
`
`and can be dealt with in the context of those claims.
`
` The Government’s proposed derivative construction is also wrong. The Government
`
`proposes to define a “markup language” as a “language” instead of as a “computer language.”
`
`“French” is a “language,” but it is not a “computer language.” There is no reason to exclude the
`
`word “computer” from any definition of “markup language” the Court ultimately renders.4
`
`‘355 Patent, Term 3 - macro
`
`The Government apparently realized the ludicrous nature of its original proposal for this term
`
`and has now almost adopted e-Numerate’s construction wholesale. The Government’s proposed
`
`construction, however, ignores the fact that the specification repeatedly refers to use of an
`
`
`3 The Government has dropped its request to construe “tag” in the singular. G. Br. at 13 fn. 2.
`This is one of several examples where the Government advocated for constructions throughout
`the claim construction process only to drop a term or phrase when e-Numerate briefed it and
`demonstrated how meritless the Government’s position is. The Government’s conduct forced e-
`Numerate to devote multiple pages of its brief addressing these now-abandoned arguments.
`4 The definition of “markup language” is discussed more fully in connection with the ‘337
`patent, term 6. That is the only claim where a construction of “markup language” is required. e-
`Numerate’s construction of that term is correct for the reasons set forth.
`5
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:19-cv-00859-RTH Document 88 Filed 06/01/22 Page 12 of 28
`
`interpreter to receive the macro (i.e., the macro is written in interpreted code as set forth in the
`
`last step of the claim.). See, e.g., ‘355 Patent at col. 2, lines 54 – 62; col. 7, lines 37 – 39; col. 13,
`
`lines 27 – 43; and col. 53, lines 22 – 32.
`
`‘355 Patent, Term 4 “transform the series of numerical values…”
`
`The Government does not even try to justify “plain and ordinary meaning” for this term in its
`
`brief. Instead, it merely criticizes e-Numerate’s definition. It has no answer to the explicit
`
`teachings in the specification that both the numbers and attributes for those numbers are changed
`
`in a “transformation.” See, e.g., ‘355 patent, col. 4, lines 6 – 30. Instead, the Government
`
`appears to advocate that merely changing a number from bold to italics would constitute a
`
`“transformation” of that number.
`
`The Government further criticizes e-Numerate for including the word “operation” in its
`
`proposed definition. That criticism is unfounded. The term “operation” appears in the same
`
`phrase as the word “transformation” in the claim language. For example, claim 1 provides:
`
`“performing an operation defined by the macro series of numerical values to transform the
`
`series of numerical values into a new representation of the numerical values based on the tags.”
`
`See, e.g., ‘355 Patent, claim 1. There is nothing inappropriate about e-Numerate’s use of the
`
`term “operation” (or the phrase “reflects the operation”) in its construction given that word
`
`“operation” is in the same phrase as “transform.”
`
`‘355 Patent, Term 5: “generating at least one second title”
`
`
`
`Here, the Government’s construction simply adds “and the tags” to the claim language.
`
`That is, the Government’s “definition” is simply a repeat of the claim language with an
`
`additional phrase. That is not a proper claim construction for the reasons set forth in e-
`
`
`
`6
`
`

`

`Case 1:19-cv-00859-RTH Document 88 Filed 06/01/22 Page 13 of 28
`
`Numerate’s opening brief. The Government is simply wrong that the ‘355 patent disclosure at
`
`col. 13, lines 4 – 20; col. 28, lines 57 – 61; and col. 36, lines 17 – 33 supports its position. These
`
`passages support e-Numerate’s contention that the title is generated from the transformed
`
`numbers.
`
`‘355 Patent term 6: the step of receiving
`
`
`
`
`
`This term is addressed in e-Numerate’s Brief on Indefiniteness.
`
`‘355 Patent, Term 7: “report”
`
`The Government’s construction seeks to take an ordinary word and limit it to a document
`
`generated by combining an XML-compliant document with a template. There is no basis in the
`
`claim language, specification, or prosecution history to do that. As set forth in e-Numerate’s
`
`opening brief, the Government is attempting to limit the claim to a preferred embodiment. The
`
`Federal Circuit has been explicit that “it is improper to read limitations from a preferred
`
`embodiment described in the specification . . . into the claims absent a clear indication in the
`
`intrinsic record that the patentee intended the claims to be so limited." Liebel-Flarsheim Co. v.
`
`Medrad, Inc., 358 F.3d 898, 913 (Fed. Cir. 2004).
`
`The Federal Circuit’s decision in Bell Atl. Network Servs. v. Covad Communs. Group,
`
`262 F.3d 1258 (Fed. Cir. 2001), does not support the Government’s position. In that case, the
`
`district court construed the term “mode” to be limited to three modes of operation taught in the
`
`specification. Id. at 1266. The Federal Circuit affirmed that construction by relying on explicit
`
`
`
`7
`
`

`

`Case 1:19-cv-00859-RTH Document 88 Filed 06/01/22 Page 14 of 28
`
`disclosure in the specification teaching only the use of three modes of operation and explicit
`
`statements in the prosecution history. Id. at 1269 – 1275. Those facts are not present here.5
`
`
`
`Here, the specification of the ‘355 patent explicitly characterizes the use of style sheets as
`
`“optional.” Col. 9, lines 36 – 52. The specification is similarly clear that the “data viewer”
`
`taught in the specification may use style sheets. It does not say they “must” be used. Col. 13,
`
`line 55 – col. 14, line 7. The Government inappropriately omits this citation in its brief. G. Br.
`
`at 17 – 18.
`
`The Federal Circuit has especially cautioned against importation of optional features into
`
`claims, particularly where, as here, they are mentioned only tangentially. Arthrex, Inc. v. Smith
`
`& Nephew, Inc., 935 F.3d 1319, 1330 (Fed. Cir. 2019)(“our case law counsels against
`
`incorporating a feature of a preferred embodiment into the claims, particularly where, as here,
`
`the feature at issue is mentioned only tangentially…. Nowhere does the specification mandate
`
`that threaded anchors must be rotated into bone.”)
`
`
`
`The Government cannot distinguish the claims in the related ‘842 patent that make clear
`
`that the term “report” need not be generated from a template. In light of this, the Government
`
`simply says (again) that claim differentiation should not apply.6 However, the case law cited by
`
`the Government is readily distinguishable. Interdigital Commc’ns, Inc. v. U.S. Int’l Trade
`
`Comm’n, 601 F. App’x 972, 979 (Fed. Cir. 2015), involved a claim differentiation argument
`
`
`5 The Bell Atl. Network case also precedes the Liebel-Flarsheim decision, which appears to be
`the main Federal Circuit case prohibiting limiting claims to preferred embodiments. As a result,
`Bell Atl. should be read as limited to the facts involved in that case.
`
` 6
`
` Asserted claim 29 of the ‘842 patent explicitly recites a “report” in the claim language.
`However, the Government does not seek a construction of that term in the ‘842 patent.
`Dependent claims 32 and 33 in the ‘842 patent make clear that a report is not limited, as the
`Government suggests, to use of a template with an XML document.
`8
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:19-cv-00859-RTH Document 88 Filed 06/01/22 Page 15 of 28
`
`implicating an unasserted patent. Here, the ‘842 patent is asserted, and the claim term at issue
`
`(“report”) is the same.
`
`B. The ‘816 Patent
`
`‘816 patent, Term 1: “tags reflecting characteristics”
`
`
`
`The issues raised by the parties track those discussed above.
`
`‘816 Patent, Term 2: tag/tags
`
`The issues raised by the parties track those discussed above.
`
`‘816 patent, Term 3: “wherein the characteristics indicate… format…”
`
`The Government’s “plain and ordinary meaning” construction again appears designed to
`
`argue that numbers that are bolded are in a different “format” than, for example, numbers that are
`
`italicized. Such a construction is contrary to the teachings of the ‘816 patent.
`
`The Government has offered no response to the passages in the specification showing
`
`that numbers differ in format when one or more of their attributes are different. See, e.g., col. 8,
`
`lines 28 – 43. Instead, the Government cites portions of the specification that are not germane to
`
`the issues raised by the limitation (e.g., the title of a graph axis or a footnote). The specification
`
`is clear that “format” is different when one or more attributes are different.
`
`The Government (wrongly) claims that e-Numerate is trying to limit the claims to the
`
`different attributes shown at, for example, col. 25, lines 12 – 17. That is simply not the case.
`
`‘816 patent, Term 4: “automatically transforming…common format”
`
`
`
`9
`
`

`

`Case 1:19-cv-00859-RTH Document 88 Filed 06/01/22 Page 16 of 28
`
`The Government again does not try to justify its proposed “ordinary meaning” which
`
`again appears designed to encompass, for example, taking bolded numbers in one document,
`
`italicized numbers in second document, and putting them together as bolded numbers. That
`
`again is contrary to the teachings of the ‘816 patent.
`
`The Government’s criticisms of e-Numerate’s proposed constructions are unfounded.
`
`First, the Government claims that all of the numbers have to be transformed. However, the claim
`
`does not use the term “all.” As a result, the Government’s construction should be rejected.
`
`Second, the Government again advocates for its position that the numerical values do not
`
`have multiple attributes. That is wrong for the reasons set forth previously. However, e-
`
`Numerate’s construction specifies changing “one or more” attributes to specifically address the
`
`point raised by the Government (i.e., two numbers may differ in format because they are in
`
`different currencies). That is, the “currency” attribute may be the only difference in the numbers
`
`and that is addressed by e-Numerate’s claim construction.
`
`‘816 patent Terms 5 – 9
`
`These terms are addressed in the companion reply brief on indefiniteness.
`
`‘816 Patent, Term 10: “characteristic of the numerical value”
`
`Again, the Government does not justify its “plain and ordinary meaning” construction.
`
`
`
`
`
`Instead, it again attacks e-Numerate’s construction using the same arguments as with other
`
`terms. The Government is wrong for the reasons previously set forth.
`
`
`
`10
`
`

`

`Case 1:19-cv-00859-RTH Document 88 Filed 06/01/22 Page 17 of 28
`
`
`
`Again, the Government’s citation of the “precision” attribute describes how a number is
`
`displayed in a numerical sense, and not whether it is bolded or italicized. The Government’s
`
`criticism of “describe” versus “explain” is immaterial for the reasons previously set forth.
`
`C. The ‘383 Patent
`
`‘383 Patent, Term 1: “first tags reflecting characteristics”
`
`The issues raised by the parties track those discussed above.
`
`‘383 Patent, Term 2, “second tags reflecting characteristics”
`
`The issues raised by the parties track those discussed above.
`
`‘383 Patent, Term 3: “tag/tags”
`
`The issues raised by the parties track those discussed above.
`
`‘383 Patent, Term 4: “wherein the first tags…semantic tags…”
`
`
`
`The issues regarding this term track those previously set forth. The Court should require
`
`more than one attribute in the tags because of the repeated use of the plural “attributes” in the
`
`specification. As mentioned previously, the Federal Circuit has been clear that use of the plural
`
`indicates “more than one.” Apple Inc. v. MPH Techs. Oy, 28 F.4th 254, 261 (Fed. Cir. 2022)
`
`‘3