(1) Terms of mere preference such as “preferably” and “exemplary” may be used in the specification to indicate that a particular feature is not required. Here, for example, the disclosure of an “exemplary” display that “preferably” depicts a classroom map was found to be insufficient to require the claimed “graphical display” to include such a map. “As is well settled, the claims must ‘not be read restrictively unless the patentee has demonstrated a clear intention to limit the claim scope using words or expressions of manifest exclusion or restriction.” It may therefore be best to explicitly describe any unclaimed features in the specification as being disclosed merely by way of example. (2) In the computer arts, the term “module” has understood dictionary meanings as connoting either hardware or software structure and is not a nonce word per se. Here, for example, a “distributed learning control module” was found to not be devoid of structure for using the term “module,” especially in view of the “distributed learning control” modifier and recited interconnections and intercommunications. “[T]he term ‘module’ has a structure connoting meaning to persons of ordinary skill in the computer arts.” It may therefore be acceptable to use the term “module” to avoid a means-plus-function interpretation, at least in conjunction with a suitable adjectival modifier and corresponding disclosure, although this position appears to be a point of contention at the CAFC. At the very least, this is a good case to cite in traversing such an interpretation from the PTO.
Background / Facts: The patent being asserted here directed to a “distributed learning” system that utilizes industry standard computer hardware and software linked by a network to provide a classroom or auditorium-like “virtual classroom” environment. Although the claims only generally recite a “graphical display representative of a classroom,” the only depiction of such a classroom in the specification shows a “pictorial map” seating chart. The claims additionally recite a “distributed learning control module” that “receive[s] communications transmitted between the presenter and the audience member computer systems,” “relay[s] the communications to an intended receiving computing system,” and “coordinat[es] the operation of the streaming data module.”
Issue(s): (1) Whether requiring the graphical display to include a “map” unduly narrows the claims to a preferred embodiment and (2) whether the claimed “distributed learning control module” invokes 35 U.S.C. § 112, para. 6.
Holding(s): (1) Yes. “[T]here is no suggestion in the intrinsic record that the applicant intended the claims to have the limited scope determined by the district court. To the contrary, the embodiments and examples in the specification of classroom metaphors relating to ‘maps’ are consistently described in terms of preference.” For example, the court notes that the specification describes only “preferably” providing a map of the classroom, the map being an “exemplary display,” and a window that “preferably” provides a seating chart. “Nothing further is required, and no greater definition is mandated by the language of the claims, the specification, or the prosecution history.” (2) No. “The district court, in characterizing the word ‘module’ as a mere nonce word, failed to appreciate that the word ‘module’ has understood dictionary meanings as connoting either hardware or software structure to those skilled in the computer arts. … These definitions all show that the term ‘module’ has a structure connoting meaning to persons of ordinary skill in the computer arts.” Moreover, “[the district court] also failed to consider the claimed expression ‘distributed learning control module’ as a whole, … [which] is claimed as a part of the definite structure ‘distributed learning server’ and … [recites] interconnections and intercommunications [that] support the conclusion that one of ordinary skill in the art would understand the expression ‘distributed learning control module’ to connote structure.” Finally, “[w]hile the supporting specification describes the claimed expression ‘distributed learning control module’ in a high degree of generality, in some respects using functional expressions, it is difficult to conclude that it is devoid of structure.”