Both repeated and summation characterizations of the invention serve to limit the invention as a whole. Here, for example, the generic term “node” was found to be limited to a “pager … that operates independently from a telephone network” because the specification repeatedly and exclusively used the term “pager” to refer to the devices in the patented system, and even though independence from a telephone network was mentioned only once, the specification did so in a way that referenced the “invention” as a whole. “[W]hen a patent ‘repeatedly and consistently’ characterizes a claim term in a particular way, it is proper to construe the claim term in accordance with that characterization … [and] [w]hen a patent … describes the features of the ‘present invention’ as a whole, this description limits the scope of the invention.” It may therefore be best to use terminology in the specification that is consistent with the claims and to avoid any characterizations of the “invention” as a whole.
Background / Facts: The patent being asserted here is directed to a two-way paging system, where paging devices are capable of not only receiving messages but also sending messages back in response. The claims recite a plurality of “nodes” in a larger network. Apart from the Abstract, however, the specification does not use the word “node,” but instead exclusively refers to the devices as “pagers” or “paging units.” The specification also states that “the invention provides a two-way paging system which operates independently from a telephone system for wireless data communication between users.”
Issue(s): Whether the term “node” is properly limited to a “pager … that operates independently from a telephone network.”
Holding(s): Yes. “We have recognized that when a patent ‘repeatedly and consistently’ characterizes a claim term in a particular way, it is proper to construe the claim term in accordance with that characterization. [] Here, the words ‘pager’ and ‘pager units’ appear in the specification over 200 times, and, apart from the Abstract, the specification repeatedly and exclusively uses these words to refer to the devices in the patented system.” Further, “[w]e agree with [the patentee] that the phrase ‘operates independently from the telephone system’ appears in only one sentence of the Detailed Description section, but disagree that it was improper for the district court to limit the claims in this way. ‘When a patent … describes the features of the ‘present invention’ as a whole, this description limits the scope of the invention.’ [] As [the patentee] recognizes, this is a summation sentence which describes ‘the invention’ as a whole.”