Case 1:19-cv-00859-RTH Document 90 Filed 07/01/22 Page 1 of 27
`
`
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF FEDERAL CLAIMS
`
`
`
`Plaintiffs,
`
`
`
`v.
`
`
`E-NUMERATE SOLUTIONS, INC. and
`E-NUMERATE, LLC,
`
`
`
`
`
`THE UNITED STATES,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`No. 19-859 C
`
`Judge Ryan T. Holte
`
`
`
`Defendant.
`
`
`
`
`
`DEFENDANT’S SUR-REPLY CLAIM CONSTRUCTION BRIEF
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Of Counsel:
`SCOTT BOLDEN
`NELSON KUAN
`U.S. Department of Justice
`
`
`July 1, 2022
`
`
`
`
`BRIAN M. BOYNTON
`Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney
`General
`
`GARY L. HAUSKEN
`Director
`
`SHAHAR HAREL
`Trial Attorney
`Commercial Litigation Branch
`Civil Division
`Department of Justice
`Washington, DC 20530
`shahar.harel@usdoj.gov
`Telephone: (202) 305-3075
`Facsimile: (202) 307-0345
`
`COUNSEL FOR THE DEFENDANT,
`THE UNITED STATES
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`
`
`
`I.
`
`II.
`
`Case 1:19-cv-00859-RTH Document 90 Filed 07/01/22 Page 2 of 27
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`INTRODUCTION ...............................................................................................................1
`
`ARGUMENT .......................................................................................................................1
`
`A.
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`4.
`
`5.
`
`6.
`
`7.
`
`B.
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`4.
`
`5.
`
`6.
`
`C.
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`4.
`
`5.
`
`The ‘355 Patent ........................................................................................................1
`
`‘355 Patent, Term 1: “Series of numerical values having tags
`indicating characteristics …” ...................................................................................1
`
`‘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
`
`The ‘816 Patent ......................................................................................................10
`
`‘816 Patent, Term 1: “tags reflecting characteristics…” .......................................10
`
`‘816 Patent, Term 2: “tag/tags” .............................................................................10
`
`‘816 Patent, Term 3: “wherein the characteristics indicate … format
`…” ..........................................................................................................................10
`
`‘816 Patent, Term 4: “automatically transforming … common format” ...............11
`
`‘816 Patent, Terms 5 -9 ..........................................................................................12
`
`‘816 Patent, Term 10: “characteristic of the numerical value” ..............................12
`
`The ‘383 Patent ......................................................................................................12
`
`‘383 Patent, Term 1: “first tags reflecting characteristics . . .” ..............................12
`
`‘383 Patent, Term 2: “second tags reflecting characteristics …” ..........................12
`
`‘383 Patent, Term 3: “tag/tags” .............................................................................12
`
`‘383 Patent, Term 4:“wherein the first tags . . . semantic tags . . .”.......................12
`
`‘383 Patent, Term 5: “semantic tag/semantic tags” ...............................................12
`
`ii
`
`

`

`Case 1:19-cv-00859-RTH Document 90 Filed 07/01/22 Page 3 of 27
`
`
`
`6.
`
`7.
`
`8.
`
`9.
`
`10.
`
`11.
`
`12.
`
`13.
`
`D.
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`4.
`
`5.
`
`6.
`
`7.
`
`E.
`
`F.
`
`G.
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`4.
`
`‘383 Patent, Term 6: “automatic transformation . . . common unit of
`measure” ................................................................................................................13
`
`‘383 Patent, Term 7: “capable of including . . .” ...................................................13
`
`‘383 Patent, Term 8: “rule” ....................................................................................13
`
`‘383 Patent, Term 9: “presentation” ......................................................................15
`
`‘383 Patent, Term 10: “report” ..............................................................................16
`
`‘383 Patent, Term 11: “multiple hierarchical relationships between two
`line items …” .........................................................................................................16
`
`‘383 Patent, Term 12: “capable of including . . .” .................................................17
`
`‘383 Patent, Terms 13- 16 ......................................................................................17
`
`The ‘384 Patent ......................................................................................................17
`
`‘384 Patent, Term 1: “values” ................................................................................17
`
`‘384 Patent, Term 2: “data structure” ....................................................................18
`
`‘384 Patent, Term 3: “identify one or more indications … tagging …
`semantic tags” ........................................................................................................19
`
`‘384 Patent, Term 4: “one or more computer-readable semantic tags” .................19
`
`‘384 Patent, Term 5: “semantic tags” ....................................................................19
`
`‘384 Patent, Term 6: “presentation” ......................................................................19
`
`‘384 Patent, Term 7: “report” ................................................................................19
`
`The ‘748 Patent ......................................................................................................19
`
`The ‘842 Patent ......................................................................................................19
`
`The ‘337 Patent ......................................................................................................19
`
`‘337 Patent, Term 1: “data values” ........................................................................19
`
`‘337 Patent, Term 2: “computer readable semantic tags . . .” ................................19
`
`‘337 Patent, Term 3: “semantic tags” ....................................................................19
`
`‘337 Patent, Term 4: “presentation” ......................................................................19
`
`iii
`
`

`

`Case 1:19-cv-00859-RTH Document 90 Filed 07/01/22 Page 4 of 27
`
`
`
`5.
`
`6.
`
`H.
`
`‘337 Patent, Term 5: “report” ................................................................................20
`
`‘337 Patent, Term 6: “markup language” ..............................................................20
`
`The ‘708 Patent ......................................................................................................20
`
`III.
`
`CONCLUSION ..................................................................................................................20
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`iv
`
`

`

`Case 1:19-cv-00859-RTH Document 90 Filed 07/01/22 Page 5 of 27
`
`
`
`CASES
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`
`
`Advanced Aerospace Techs., Inc. v. United States, 122 Fed. Cl. 445 (2015) ............................... 18
`
`Advanced Fiber Techs. (AFT) Tr. v. J & L Fiber Servs., Inc., 674 F.3d 1365 (Fed. Cir.
`2012) ......................................................................................................................................... 5
`
`Apple Inc. v. MPH Techs. Oy, 28 F.4th 254, 261 (Fed. Cir. 2022) ................................................ 2
`
`Arista Networks, Inc. v. Cisco Sys., Inc., 908 F.3d 792 (Fed. Cir. 2018) ................................. 9, 14
`
`Bell Atl. Network Servs. v. Covad Communs. Group, 262 F.3d 1258 (Fed. Cir. 2001)........ 8, 9, 14
`
`CAE Screenplates, Inc. v. Heinrich Fiedler GmbH & Co. KG, 224 F.3d 1308 (Fed. Cir.
`2000) ....................................................................................................................................... 15
`
`EON Corp. IP Holdings, LLC v. Sensus USA Inc., 741 F.Supp.2d 783 (E.D. Tex. 2010) ........... 18
`
`Hilgraeve Corp. v. Symantec Corp., 265 F.3d 1336 (Fed. Cir. 2001) ......................................... 13
`
`Liebel-Flarsheim Co. v. Medrad, Inc., 358 F.3d 898, 913 (Fed. Cir. 2004) .................................. 8
`
`Lydall Thermal/Acoustical, Inc. v. Federal-Mogul Corp., 344 Fed. Appx. 607 (Fed. Cir.
`2009) ................................................................................................................................... 9, 14
`
`Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2005) .............................................................. 20
`
`SanDisk Corp. v. Memorex Prod., Inc., 415 F.3d 1278 (Fed. Cir. 2005) ....................................... 5
`
`SciMed Life Sys., Inc. v. Advanced Cardiovascular Sys., Inc., 242 F.3d 1337 (Fed. Cir.
`2001) ......................................................................................................................................... 9
`
`Secure Web Conference Corp. v. Microsoft Corp., 640 Fed. Appx. 910 (Fed. Cir. 2016) ....... 9, 14
`
`See Innova/Pure Water, Inc. v. Safari Water Filtration Systems, Inc., 381 F.3d 1111 (Fed.
`Cir. 2004) .................................................................................................................................. 3
`
`STATUTES
`
`35 U.S.C. § 101 ............................................................................................................................ 4,5
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`v
`
`

`

`Case 1:19-cv-00859-RTH Document 90 Filed 07/01/22 Page 6 of 27
`
`
`
`Defendant, the United States, respectfully submits this Sur-Reply Claim Construction
`
`Brief in response to Plaintiffs e-Numerate Solutions, Inc. and e-Numerate Solutions, LLC’s
`
`(collectively, “e-Numerate”) Reply Claim Construction Brief (ECF 88).
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`In its Reply brief, e-Numerate glosses over many of the deficiencies Defendant identified
`
`in its opposition brief and simply reiterates its previous arguments. For example, with respect to
`
`the “tags”-related terms, Defendant explained how the specific teachings of the patents relating
`
`to the x_prec attribute demonstrated its use in determining how a number is displayed. In
`
`response, e-Numerate concedes that this is a display-related attribute, but only in a “numerical
`
`sense” without expanding on this concept. In another case, e-Numerate agrees as to certain
`
`characteristics disclosed by several attributes, but then disputes in a conclusory manner that one
`
`attribute can disclose two characteristics while specifically citing that attribute. Similarly, in the
`
`context of the “rules” term, e-Numerate agrees to the different relevant disclosures between the
`
`two families of patents with respect to this term, yet asserts – without any justification – that the
`
`same construction is required across all patents. As explained below, e-Numerate’s arguments
`
`lack merit and this Court should adopt Defendant’s proposed claim constructions for each of the
`
`disputed terms.
`
`II.
`
`ARGUMENT
`
`A.
`
`The ‘355 Patent
`
`1. ‘355 Patent, Term 1: “Series of numerical values having tags indicating
`characteristics …”
`
`e-Numerate’s Reply highlights its inability to reconcile the teachings of the specification
`
`with its proposed construction. e-Numerate acknowledges that the disclosed x_prec attribute is
`
`used by a computer “to determine how a number appears in a numerical sense” (ECF 88 at 3;
`
`1
`
`

`

`Case 1:19-cv-00859-RTH Document 90 Filed 07/01/22 Page 7 of 27
`
`
`
`emphasis added), yet rather than refining its proposed construction, it still maintains that the
`
`correct construction requires “more than one attribute that explains the meaning of the
`
`numerical values.” (ECF 80-3 at 1; emphasis added). Presumably, e-Numerate is suggesting
`
`that an attribute used “to determine how a number appears in a numerical sense” is within the
`
`ambit of an “attribute that explains the meaning of the numerical values” even though the patent
`
`states that the attribute is used for the formatting and representation of the number. ‘355 Patent at
`
`24:55-57. However, this is unclear and illustrates how e-Numerate’s proposed construction
`
`introduces rather than resolves ambiguity.
`
`Other cases are even more problematic. For example, consider hypothetical attributes
`
`consistent with the patent’s disclosure, ITALICIZE_IF_NEGATIVE and BOLD_IF_LARGE,
`
`that when enabled, a computer uses to italicize a number if it is negative or display in bold if its
`
`value is greater than a million. Would e-Numerate contend that such attributes are directed to
`
`how that number appears “in a numerical sense” or merely in “a display sense”? In any case, the
`
`specific teachings of the patent indicate that the attributes are not limited to merely describing
`
`the meaning of the numbers but may also be used to alter the formatting and representation of the
`
`numbers more generally. See e.g., id. As e-Numerate’s proposed construction omits this
`
`possibility it should be rejected.
`
` e-Numerate’s citations to several cases regarding claim construction are of no moment.
`
`For example, it cites Apple Inc. v. MPH Techs. Oy, for the proposition that a plural term refers to
`
`two or more. 28 F.4th 254, 261 (Fed. Cir. 2022). However, it is e-Numerate that is conflating
`
`the plural “characteristics” recited in the claims with the plural “attributes.” Defendant agrees
`
`that the plain and ordinary meaning of “characteristics” refers to two or more characteristics.
`
`However, e-Numerate specifically drafted these claims to recite “characteristics” and not
`
`2
`
`

`

`Case 1:19-cv-00859-RTH Document 90 Filed 07/01/22 Page 8 of 27
`
`
`
`“attributes” and that choice should be granted deference. See Innova/Pure Water, Inc. v. Safari
`
`Water Filtration Systems, Inc., 381 F.3d 1111, 1116 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (noting that “a claim
`
`construction analysis must begin and remain centered on the claim language itself”).
`
`Additionally, when the Patentee sought to use the term “attribute” in its claims it specifically did
`
`so. For example, claim 4 of related U.S. Patent No. 6,886,005 (Ex. A) recites: “The method of
`
`claim 2, wherein the tags that define characteristics of the document are identified as specific
`
`element attribute values, which allow characteristics of a document to be interpreted as they
`
`appear in the source documents.”
`
`Moreover, e-Numerate has no argument to counter Defendant’s assertion that one
`
`attribute may disclose two characteristics. ECF 82 at 10. It agrees that the li_unit attribute with
`
`a value of “$” discloses one characteristic; similarly the attribute li_mag attribute with a value of
`
`“3” can disclose a characteristic of thousands (or 103). Reply at 4; see also ‘355 Patent at 20:24-
`
`44; 25:34-37. However, it only states in conclusory fashion that the disclosed attribute
`
`“y_axis_title” with a value of “$ in Thousands” does not disclose the same two aforementioned
`
`characteristics. ECF 88 at 4. This is wrong as is plainly seen by inspecting the value of this
`
`attribute. Indeed, the specification confirms the patentee’s intention that attributes be redundant
`
`in certain cases, explaining that the y_axis_label discloses the same information provided by
`
`other attributes: “the data viewer 100 uses these attributes to construct y-axis labels and
`
`descriptors when the user has made a transformation and the [initial] ‘y_axis_label’ attribute is
`
`no longer appropriate.” ‘355 Patent at 25:30-33. Therefore, the distinction between attributes
`
`and characteristics is meaningful and e-Numerate should not be able to use them
`
`interchangeably.
`
`3
`
`

`

`Case 1:19-cv-00859-RTH Document 90 Filed 07/01/22 Page 9 of 27
`
`
`
`e-Numerate surprisingly repeats its claim differentiation argument based on claim 27 of
`
`the ‘816 Patent, ECF 88 at 4, even though Defendant has already substantively differentiated the
`
`language in that claim from the one at issue. ECF 82 at 11. Notably, the language at issue refers
`
`to “tags indicating characteristics of the numerical values” whereas claim 27 recites “request
`
`indicating at least one characteristic of the numerical value.” Additionally, e-Numerate’ s new
`
`reference to the language “wherein at least one of the tags has the indicated characteristic of the
`
`requested numerical value” is also unavailing because each tag may indicate a separate
`
`characteristic and the language at issue references tags. Hence, any argument based on claim
`
`differentiation fails. Therefore, this Court should adopt Defendant’s proposed construction.
`
`2. ‘355 Patent, Term 2: “tag/tags”
`
`The parties both agree that tags should be construed as “markup language tags” and the
`
`only dispute is whether the Court should issue a derivative construction directed to “markup
`
`language.” e-Numerate’s Reply confirms that not only would such a derivative construction be
`
`beneficial, it is actually necessary in order for the Court to address issues relating to patent
`
`eligibility under § 101. Previously, Defendant directly challenged e-Numerate to “either propose
`
`a construction of ‘tags’ that explains what limitations distinguish these ‘tags’ over prior art
`
`markup language tags or acknowledge that its ‘tags’ are no different than prior art markup
`
`language tags, e.g., HTML/XML/XBRL tags.” ECF 82 at 14. e-Numerate’s Reply is entirely
`
`silent on this point yet speaks volumes. On the one hand, in its briefing opposing Defendant’s
`
`motion to dismiss it argued that claim construction issues based on “tags” and “computer
`
`readable semantic tags” compelled denial of Defendant’s motion to dismiss. See ECF 15 at 42.
`
`On the other hand, in the context of claim construction briefing it declines to provide a
`
`meaningful construction for this term in order to hamstring any future motion based on § 101.
`
`See ECF 27 at *35 (“Nothing in this opinion and order shall be construed as prohibiting the
`
`4
`
`

`

`Case 1:19-cv-00859-RTH Document 90 Filed 07/01/22 Page 10 of 27
`
`
`
`government from seeking to revisit the patent eligibility of the asserted claims under § 101
`
`following claim construction and at least some fact discovery”). This is a classic case where a
`
`court should provide a derivative construction. See Advanced Fiber Techs. (AFT) Tr. v. J & L
`
`Fiber Servs., Inc., 674 F.3d 1365, 1373 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (“in those cases in which the correct
`
`construction of a claim term necessitates a derivative construction of a non-claim term, a court
`
`may perform the derivative construction in order to elucidate the claim's meaning”); Edwards
`
`Lifesciences LLC v. Cook Inc., 582 F.3d 1322, 1334 (Fed. Cir. 2009) (finding that the district
`
`court properly provided an initial construction and then clarified that construction by construing
`
`a secondary term that did not appear in the claim).
`
`As to further substantive aspects of the proposed construction for “markup language,”
`
`Defendant incorporates by reference its arguments as to Term 6 of the ‘337 Patent which
`
`addresses this term and is based on a substantially similar specification. Accordingly, this Court
`
`should adopt Defendant’s proposal for Term 2.
`
`3. ‘355 Patent, Term 3: “macro”
`
`e-Numerate appears to be arguing that the specification requires that the macro be limited
`
`to interpreted code. However, some of its citations simply describe the macro and reference
`
`interpreted code while other citations mention an interpreter, yet none require the macro to be
`
`limited to interpreted code as e-Numerate alleges. All of the citations to the specification and the
`
`deliberate claim language reciting “the macro including interpreted code” (independent Claim 1)
`
`and “the macro comprises interpreted code” (independent Claim 27) require a broader
`
`construction for macro which does not limit it to “interpreted code.” SanDisk Corp. v. Memorex
`
`Prod., Inc., 415 F.3d 1278, 1284 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (“As a patent law term of art, ‘includes’ means
`
`‘comprising.’ Neither includes, nor comprising, forecloses additional elements that need not
`
`satisfy the stated claim limitations”) (omitting internal citation). e-Numerate does not even
`
`5
`
`

`

`Case 1:19-cv-00859-RTH Document 90 Filed 07/01/22 Page 11 of 27
`
`
`
`attempt to address this claim language or case law.1 Accordingly, this Court should adopt
`
`Defendant’s revised proposed construction.
`
`4. ‘355 Patent, Term 4: “transform the series of numerical values …”
`
`e-Numerate’s Reply is silent as to why a claim construction that seeks to rewrite the
`
`language to include a limitation directed to attributes is appropriate. Nor does it explain why
`
`attributes would necessarily change in the claimed transformation. For example, the
`
`specification discloses that after a transformation at least one attribute may be outdated. ‘355
`
`Patent at 25:30-33 (“… when the user has made a transformation and the ‘y_axis_label’ attribute
`
`is no longer appropriate.”).
`
`Second, while e-Numerate discusses the propriety of inserting the word “operation” in
`
`the context of this term it does not justify why the addition of the language “reflects the
`
`operation” is appropriate. Defendant has already identified potential ambiguity that results from
`
`that insertion, ECF 82 at 15-16, and e-Numerate provides no further clarification on this point in
`
`its Reply. Given that e-Numerate’s proffered construction introduces ambiguity it should be
`
`rejected. Therefore, the Court should reject e-Numerate’s attempt to rewrite its claims.
`
`5. ‘355 Patent, Term 5: “generating at least one second title…”
`
`Defendant’s proposed construction is consistent with both the disclosure in the patents
`
`and the reasoning e-Numerate presents in its briefing. The patent explains that the
`
`transformation is based on the pre-transformation attributes: “Upon receiving RDML markup
`
`documents, the chart view transforms, formats, manipulates and displays data stored in the
`
`markup documents using the attributes describing the meaning of the data.” ‘353 Patent at 17-
`
`
`1 Interestingly, the claims also require the macro to include “meta-data, and error
`handling instructions,” yet e-Numerate does not advocate for their inclusion in this term
`underscoring the inconsistency in its reasoning.
`
`6
`
`

`

`Case 1:19-cv-00859-RTH Document 90 Filed 07/01/22 Page 12 of 27
`
`
`
`20. Further, as claims 1 and 28 of the ‘355 Patent both require that the second title be “generated
`
`corresponding to the results of the operation” that transforms, they will necessarily also be based
`
`on the (pre-transformation) attributes. e-Numerate has stated that the “transformation of the
`
`numerical values results in new attributes which are then used to generate the ‘second title,’”
`
`ECF 78 at 17, and that “the title is generated from the transformed numbers.” ECF 88 at 7.
`
`However, both of those are based on (pre-transformation) attributes. Therefore, e-Numerate’s
`
`statements actually support Defendant’s proposed construction. Accordingly, this Court should
`
`adopt Defendant’s construction.
`
`6. ‘355 Patent, Term 6: “the step of receiving”
`
`This term is addressed in Defendant’s Reply Claim Construction Brief on Indefiniteness
`
`(the “Indefiniteness Brief”).
`
`7. ‘355 Patent, Term 7: “report”
`
`e-Numerate’s Reply is mistaken with respect to the disclosures in the patent, the relevant
`
`caselaw and the significance of the ‘842 Patent to this term. First, in terms of the teachings of
`
`the patent, e-Numerate is still unable to identify a single instance in which a report is generated
`
`without the use of style sheets. One of e-Numerate’s citations merely states that “style sheets
`
`[are] another optional input to the data viewer [and] can be applied to data documents to create
`
`specially-formatted output reports.” ‘355 Patent at 9:36-39. It does not state that reports may be
`
`generated without style sheets – the reports are optional features but when that feature is invoked
`
`it is through the use of style sheets. Similarly, e-Numerate’s other citation is entirely silent on
`
`reports. See Id. at 13:55-14:7. Hence, the only relevant citations in the specification are those
`
`Defendant previously identified in its initial briefing which support its proposed construction.
`
`ECF 82 at 17-18.
`
`7
`
`

`

`Case 1:19-cv-00859-RTH Document 90 Filed 07/01/22 Page 13 of 27
`
`
`
`Second, e-Numerate’s reliance on caselaw is unavailing. It cites Liebel-Flarsheim Co. v.
`
`Medrad, Inc., for the proposition that the claim element “report” is not limited based on the
`
`disclosed embodiment. 358 F.3d 898, 913 (Fed. Cir. 2004). However, in Liebel-Flarsheim, the
`
`Court found that the limitation “physical indicia” was not limited to indicia related to the length
`
`of the extender because the claims “explicitly state that the physical indicia are related to a
`
`variety of properties, such as the amount of fluid in the syringe, the distance of the plunger from
`
`the end of the syringe. . . .” Id. (emphasis added). Further, the patentee made explicit statements
`
`in the prosecution history “explaining that various properties, such as the amount of fluid in the
`
`syringe, could be calculated from the information as to the length of the extender.” Id. The
`
`court found that this was “[f]ar from a clear disavowal of claim scope [and that] the quoted
`
`passage makes clear that the application contemplated that the claims of the [] patent would
`
`encompass ‘physical indicia’ related to properties other than the length of an extender.” Id. In
`
`contrast, the only statements in the ‘355 Patent are the repeated and consistent ones explaining
`
`how style sheets are applied in order to create a report. See ECF 82 at 17-18. Hence Liebel-
`
`Flarsheim is distinguishable.
`
`e-Numerate also argues that Bell Atl. Network Servs. v. Covad Communs. Group, 262
`
`F.3d 1258 (Fed. Cir. 2001). is inapplicable. There, the Federal Circuit affirmed a narrow
`
`construction for the term “mode” limited to three modes categories based on a review of the
`
`specification, id. at 1269-1273, and reaffirmed this finding based on the prosecution history and
`
`certain claims. Id. at 1273-1275. The court noted that “the ordinary meaning of the non-
`
`technical term ‘mode’ is sufficiently broad and amorphous that the scope of the claim language
`
`can be reconciled only with recourse to the written description.” Id. at 1269-1270 (emphasis
`
`added). It also added that “the written description of the preferred embodiments ‘can provide
`
`8
`
`

`

`Case 1:19-cv-00859-RTH Document 90 Filed 07/01/22 Page 14 of 27
`
`
`
`guidance as to the meaning of the claims, thereby dictating the manner in which the claims are to
`
`be construed, even if the guidance is not provided in explicit definitional format.’” Id. at 1268
`
`(citing SciMed Life Sys., Inc. v. Advanced Cardiovascular Sys., Inc., 242 F.3d 1337, 1344 (Fed.
`
`Cir. 2001)). Here, the term “report” is also a broad and amorphous non-technical term such that
`
`a review of the specification is necessary. Yet the specification reveals the patentee repeatedly
`
`and consistently explained that the report is generated by applying style sheets as templates.
`
`Therefore, Bell Atl. is analogous and supports Defendant’s construction.
`
`e-Numerate also suggests in a footnote that since Bell Atl. preceded Liebel-Flarsheim it
`
`should be confined to its facts. Reply at 8, n.5. However, Liebel-Flarsheim is not the only case
`
`warning against limiting claims terms to specific embodiments as e-Numerate suggests. See,
`
`e.g., Bell Atl., 262 F.3d at 1273 (“We acknowledge that it is generally impermissible to limit
`
`claim terms by a preferred embodiment or inferences drawn from the description of a preferred
`
`embodiment”) (citing Johnson Worldwide Assocs., Inc. v. Zebco Corp., 175 F.3d 985, 992 (Fed.
`
`Cir. 1999)). Moreover, the Federal Circuit has repeatedly applied the same rationale as in Bell
`
`Atl. to limit a claim term even after Liebel-Flarsheim. E.g., Lydall Thermal/Acoustical, Inc. v.
`
`Federal-Mogul Corp., 344 Fed. Appx. 607, 615-16 (Fed. Cir. 2009) (construing claim term in
`
`light of a single embodiment of the specification); Secure Web Conference Corp. v. Microsoft
`
`Corp., 640 Fed. Appx. 910, 914-915 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (“We are mindful not to limit claims to
`
`preferred embodiments, but in this case, the district court did not err in concluding that Figures 1
`
`and 2 depict the essence of the claimed invention rather than a preferred embodiment”); Arista
`
`Networks, Inc. v. Cisco Sys., Inc., 908 F.3d 792, 797-798 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (citing Bell Atl. and
`
`overturing Board’s construction in favor of a narrower construction consistent with the only
`
`disclosed embodiment).
`
`9
`
`

`

`Case 1:19-cv-00859-RTH Document 90 Filed 07/01/22 Page 15 of 27
`
`
`
`e-Numerate also argues that the ‘842 Patent’s usage of the term report in unasserted
`
`claims 32 and 33 requires a broader construction for this term than that proffered by Defendant.
`
`Notably, e-Numerate still cannot identify a single case where claim differentiation was applied
`
`to a non-familial patent. Therefore, such arguments should not be applicable with respect to
`
`construction of that term in the ‘355 Patent and other familial patents where that term is recited.
`
`Notably, Defendant also seeks the same construction for this term in the ‘842 Patent2 and has
`
`already explained, that claims 32 and 33 of that patent do not necessitate a broader construction
`
`for report. ECF 82 at 18. e-Numerate’s Reply does not even address these distinctions.
`
`Therefore, the same construction also holds for the ‘842 Patent.
`
`Finally, e-Numerate does not even attempt to reconcile its plain and ordinary construction
`
`for the term “report” and “presentation” for which it advances the same construction.
`
`Accordingly, this Court should adopt Defendant’s construction.
`
`B.
`
`The ‘816 Patent
`
`1. ‘816 Patent, Term 1: “tags reflecting characteristics…”
`
`The issues raised by the parties for this term track those discussed above.
`
`2. ‘816 Patent, Term 2: “tag/tags”
`
`The issues raised by the parties for this term track those discussed above.
`
`3. ‘816 Patent, Term 3: “wherein the characteristics indicate … format …”
`
`e-Numerate’s Reply fails to address the deficiency in its proposed construction that
`
`Defendant previously identified. Namely, its construction is too narrow since it only requires
`
`that two documents have one or more attributes for the numerical values that differ. However,
`
`
`2 Due to an oversight Defendant neglected to list “report” from claim 29 in the ‘842
`Patent as a term requiring construction. It seeks the same construction for report in that patent as
`it does for the ‘355 Patent.
`
`10
`
`

`

`Case 1:19-cv-00859-RTH Document 90 Filed 07/01/22 Page 16 of 27
`
`
`
`two documents could have the numerical values in the same format yet have one or more
`
`attributes that differ. One example of a relevant (and disclosed) attribute that could change is the
`
`footnote attribute. ‘816 Patent at 46:42-51. The footnote attribute could change and not
`
`materially impact the format of the numbers. Additionally, e-Numerate’s Reply confirms that
`
`the relevant attributes are not limited to the specific ones arguably directed to format (unit,
`
`magnitude, modifier, measure, scale). ‘355 Patent at 25:12-17. Hence, other non-format related
`
`attributes could differ and this would be within the scope of e-Numerate’s proposed construction.
`
`Accordingly, this Court should reject e-Numerate’s construction.
`
`4. ‘816 Patent, Term 4: “automatically transforming … common format”
`
`In its Reply, e-Numerate attempts to justify its proposed construction in which only “at
`
`least a portion of the first or second numerical values” need to be converted. It asserts that this is
`
`justified because the “the claim does not use the term ‘all.’” Reply at 10. This assertion is
`
`specious. The relevant claim language recites “automatically transforming/transforms the
`
`numerical values of at least one of the first markup document and the second markup document,
`
`so that the numerical values o