Ronald A. Katz Technology Licensing v. Earthlink - IP Spotlight
Ronald A. Katz Technology Licensing v. Earthlink - IP Spotlight
Ronald A. Katz Technology Licensing v. Earthlink - IP Spotlight
You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles
YUMPU automatically turns print PDFs into web optimized ePapers that Google loves.
1<br />
2<br />
3<br />
4<br />
5<br />
6<br />
7<br />
8<br />
9<br />
10<br />
11<br />
12<br />
13<br />
14<br />
15<br />
16<br />
17<br />
18<br />
19<br />
20<br />
21<br />
22<br />
23<br />
24<br />
25<br />
26<br />
27<br />
28<br />
number to determine said individual caller’s credit.” The recited function of the<br />
“acknowledgment number structure” is “providing a computer generated acknowledgement<br />
number to said individual callers.”<br />
Without any analysis, EarthLink argues that the specification discloses a general purpose<br />
computer to perform these functions. If EarthLink is correct, under WMS Gaming, the disclosed<br />
structure must include both the general purpose computer and algorithms disclosed by the<br />
specification. Id. at 1349.<br />
<strong>Katz</strong> disagrees and argues that the ‘762 patent specification discloses special purpose<br />
components to perform the recited functions. With respect to the credit verification structure,<br />
<strong>Katz</strong> identifies the interface 20, processors PR1-PRN, which have qualification unit 93, buffer 97<br />
and memory 98 as performing the recited function. In support of that contention, <strong>Katz</strong>’s expert,<br />
Dr. Brody, identifies a passage that describes the qualification unit 93 performing a two stage<br />
test under control of the processing unit 92. (Brody Decl. at 384 (citing to ‘762 patent at 11:17-<br />
35).) The test verifies the customer number and credit card information. This passage shows that<br />
qualification unit 93 corresponds to the recited function of the claimed “credit verification<br />
structure.” Dr. Brody also states that processing unit 92, buffer 97 and memory 98 should be<br />
included as corresponding structures, but does not explain the basis for these additions. (Brody<br />
Decl. at 380.) For the purposes of this motion, this Court does not need to determine if these<br />
structures also correspond to the recited function. This Court only needs to determine whether<br />
this means plus function limitation falls within WMS Gaming. It does not because the<br />
qualification unit 93 performs the recited function.<br />
With respect to the acknowledgment structure, <strong>Katz</strong> identifies five different combinations<br />
of structures that perform the recited function:<br />
(a) one or more of processors PR1-PRn;<br />
19