Move et al v. Real Estate Alliance (CAFC 2010-1236) nonprecedential

We review claim construction de novo. Cybor Corp. v. FAS Techs., Inc., 138 F.3d 1448, 1455-56 (Fed. Cir. 1998) (en banc). The words of a claim are generally given their ordinary and customary meaning as understood by a person of ordinary skill in the art when read in the context of the specification and prosecution history. See Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1313 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc).

Claim 1 was on appeal: a method claim for creating and using a database to show a zoomable map that shows available properties.

Claim 1 recites:

A method using a computer for locating available real estate properties comprising the steps of:

a) creating a database of the available real estate properties;

b) displaying a map of a desired geographic area;

c) selecting a first area having boundaries within the geographic area;

d) zooming in on the first area of the displayed map to about the boundaries of the first area to display a higher level of detail than the displayed map;

e) displaying the zoomed first area;

f) selecting a second area having boundaries within the zoomed first area;

g) displaying the second area and a plurality of points within the second area, each point representing the appropriate geographic location of an available real estate property; and

h) identifying available real estate properties within the database which are located within the second area.

The district court (Judge George H. King in Central California) had a oddly limiting construction for (a) "creating a database of the available real estate properties."

The district court's construction thus encompasses creating only the structure or schema of the database, i.e., creating an empty database with a defined structure.

The court acknowledged that the plain language of the claim, creating a database "of" properties, rather than "for" properties, implies that the database is populated with properties when it is created. The court reasoned, however, that "the database is not populated by the inventor, but rather by third-party users, who wish to sell a property." J.A. 15. The court further noted that the claimed database is "dynamic and not fixed," and concluded that "the database is not 'created' anew each time the database is updated with a new property listing file." Id. The court further stated that it was "not sure what the inventor could possibly have patented beyond the structure and the schema that permits this dynamic process of database population and maintenance to occur." J.A. 16.

On appeal, REAL argues, and we agree, that the plain language of the claim precludes the district court's construction. The claim recites creating a database of available properties. Thus, the database must be populated with at least two properties upon creation.

REAL also argues that the district court's construction improperly limits "database" to databases having tables and fields, and that the term database is broad enough to encompass a sequential list database with no tables or fields--e.g., a flat file. We agree. Nothing in the specification limits the term database to any particular type of database. "Absent a clear disavowal or contrary definition in the specification or the prosecution history, the patentee is entitled to the full scope of its claim language." Home Diagnostics, Inc. v. Lifescan, Inc., 381 F.3d 1352, 1358 (Fed. Cir. 2004). Nothing before us indicates that the inventor disavowed any particular database implementation. Accordingly, we conclude that step (a) means creating a database containing data representing two or more available real estate properties.

Claim elements (c) and (f), selecting an area, were also unnecessarily narrowed.

The district court construed step (c), "selecting a first area having boundaries . . ." to mean a user "choosing a geographic area of interest by causing a boundary to be superimposed over the displayed map using the first area selection cursor." J.A. 16.

The district court similarly construed step (f), "selecting a second area having boundaries . . . ," to mean "choosing a search area by causing a boundary to be superimposed over the displayed map using the second area selection cursor." J.A. 16.

Thus, the district court's construction limits these selecting steps to a user defining and selecting an area using a resizable selection tool.

In our view, defining an area is different than choosing a particular area once it has been defined. The plain language of the claim requires only the choosing of a particular area having boundaries. The claim language, "selecting a first area having boundaries," does not require that the user create the boundaries. The claim only requires that the user select an area with boundaries. And it certainly does not require that the user utilize any particular tool (such as a selection cursor or rubberband) to create boundaries. Claim 1 of the '989 patent does not contain the same "first area selection cursor" limitation as the claims of the '576 patent and it was incorrect for the district court to import it into this claim. There is nothing in the specification that clearly disavows selecting an existing area with boundaries. In the absence of such a disavowal, we will not narrow the claims.

Contrary to Move's characterization, we do not read the prosecution history to limit the claimed invention in this manner. The inventor characterized the prior art as discussing selection of pre-existing subregions, but not disclosing the selection of first and second bounded areas where the second is within the first. J.A. 1007-08. Move also argues that the inventor did not dispute the examiner's characterization of the invention as allowing the operator to designate an area by drawing a border around it on a display. This characterization, however, does not amount to a clear disavowal of selecting an existing area as Move argues. The characterization was not made by REAL, nor did it acquiesce in the examiner's characterization. J.A. 998-99, 1007-09... We conclude that the prosecution history cited by Move does not clearly disavow selecting an existing area. Accordingly, we conclude that selecting an area having boundaries does not require defining the boundaries.

The district court also missed on (d) zooming, unreasonably burdening the claim limitation.

First, we agree with REAL that the district court erred by importing the first area selection cursor expressly recited in the '576 patent claim into its construction of this claim.

This step recites "zooming . . . to display a higher level of detail." Thus, this step expressly requires more detail to be displayed. According to the plain language of this claim, mere magnification is not enough as it would not "display a higher level of detail." Moreover, during prosecution of the '576 patent, the inventor distinguished a similar zooming step from a prior art analog projection system that optically magnifies static map slides. According to the inventor, the prior art optical magnification system "fails to provide a greater level of detail." J.A. 10. We conclude that the zooming step requires the computer to enlarge and display with more detail than was displayed in step b) an area equal to or approximately equal to the first area.

The district court was consistent in its claim construction conniptions with (g) displaying points.

Step (g) recites "displaying the second area and a plurality of points within the second area, each point representing the appropriate geographic location of an available real estate property."

[T]he [district] court limited the "appropriate geographic location" to a location previously pinpointed by a user in a particular manner.

We agree with REAL that the pinpointing limitation should not be imported into the definition of an appropriate geographic location. The claim recites no such limitation. Furthermore, the specification gives us no reason to conclude that every listing in the claimed database must be entered by this create and update procedure.

The parties also disagree whether the appropriate geographic location corresponds to the actual or approximate physical location of the available real estate property. The inventor added step (g) in its entirety to overcome cited art, explaining that the points were each displayed "at the approximate geographic location of available real estate property." J.A. 1009. Accordingly, we conclude that the "appropriate geographic location" broadly means the approximate geographic location of an available property as stored in the database.

The district court did get it right that zooming was on a display, not on a printed map.

Vacated and remanded. Costs to REAL.