Effects of Proximity, Plurals, and Passive Voice for Claim Construction

APPLE INC. v. MPH TECHNOLOGIES OY

Before Moore, Prost, and Taranto. Appeal from Patent Trial and Appeal Board.

Summary: The proximity of concepts in a claim may link the concepts together and affect the plain meaning of the claim.

Apple petitioned for inter partes reviews of three patents directed to improving secure messaging across networks. The Patent Trial and Appeal Board (the Board) rejected Apple’s claim construction and found that Apple failed to show that the challenged claims would have been obvious. Apple appealed.

The Federal Circuit affirmed the Board’s decisions. The Federal Circuit rejected Apple’s claim construction and emphasized that claim terms should generally be given their plain and ordinary meaning. The Federal Circuit also detailed several rules for interpreting claim language. First, the Federal Circuit explained that the proximity of concepts in a claim can link the concepts together. Based on this principle, the Federal Circuit rejected Apple’s interpretation of “intermediate computer configured to receive from a mobile computer a secure message sent to the first network address.” Apple argued that the phrase did not require the mobile computer to send the message directly to the first address as long as the message was eventually sent to the first address. However, the Federal Circuit held that the proximity of the receiving/sending language linked the concepts together and required the mobile computer to send the message directly to the first address. The Federal Circuit also held that the passive voice did not affect the plain meaning of the challenged claims.

Additionally, the Federal Circuit held that a plural term refers to two or more items, even when “there is nothing in the written description providing any significance to using a plurality.” The Federal Circuit held that the term “information fields” referred to two or more fields. Thus, the Federal Circuit affirmed the Board’s rejection of Apple’s arguments and held found that the challenged claims would not have been obvious.

 Editor: Paul Stewart