“The Federal Circuit explained that ‘even when the specification describes only a single embodiment, the claims of the patent will not be read restrictively unless the patentee has demonstrated a clear intention to limit the claim scope,’ which the record did not show here.”
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) issued a decision today in Samesurf, Inc. v. Intuit Inc.affirming a Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) final written decision finding all claims of Samesurf’s patent directed to synchronized web browsing sessions unpatentable for obviousness. The decision was authored by Circuit Judge Stark and joined by Circuit Judges Dyk and Chen, who held that the Board correctly construed the central disputed claim term.
Samesurf owns U.S. Patent No. 9,185,145, entitled “Method and Apparatus for the Implementation of a Real-Time, Shareable Browsing Experience on a Guest Device.” The ‘145 patent broadly includes a method by which a guest device joins a synchronized browsing session administered by a centralized synchronization server, using data received from that server to independently access a website. Claim 1 requires, among other elements, that the guest device receive “web browsing interaction data” from the synchronization server and then operate an application based on that data to access a website server.
On a petition filed by Intuit Inc., the Board instituted between parties review (IPR) of all claims of the ’145 patent and ultimately issued a final written decision holding the claims obvious over a World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) international publication known as “Lebrun,” when combined with a U.S. patent application publication referred to as “Wang.” The Board’s determination turned on its interpretation of the term “web browsing interaction data,” which it construed to mean “data related to web browsing interactions.” This interpretation is broad enough to encompass webpages and partially filled webpages delivered to a user during a synchronized session. While Lebrun undisputedly disclosed transmitting partial webpages stripped of multimedia content to web clients, the Board found that Lebrun disclosed or suggested the disputed claim element, and that the combined prior art rendered all challenged claims unpatentable.
Samesurf appealed to the CAFC, arguing the Board erred in its construction by adopting an improperly broad reading of the claim term. Samesurf urged that “web browsing interaction data” should be confined to data specifically describing interactions performed on a website by a host device, and that data merely resulting from those interactions, such as Lebrun’s partial webpages, should fall outside the term’s scope. Samesurf contended that allowing partial webpages to satisfy the limitation would not make sense because such data does not, in itself, enable a guest device to participate meaningfully in a synchronized session.
The CAFC disagreed with Samesurf’s position, applying de novo review to the claim construction question and finding no persuasive basis for imposing a narrower reading on the broad claim language. Citing Thorner v. Sony Computer Entertainment America LLCthe court noted that “the patentee is free to choose a broad term and expect to obtain the full scope of its plain and ordinary meaning unless the patentee explicitly redefines the term or disavows its full scope,” and neither party contended that Samesurf had acted as its own lexicographer or made any disclaimer of claim scope.
The court further examined the remaining claim limitations, which require that web browsing interaction data be received by the guest device from the synchronization server, associated with a website server and a host device, and used to access a website server. It found that none of these limitations defines the content of the data or excludes the inclusion of partially filled webpages. The Federal Circuit also observed that dependent claim 5 expressly provides that “web browsing interaction data further comprises information related to shared user input web browsing interactions.” It also noted that Samesurf’s proposed narrower construction would, contrary to the patent’s stated purpose, effectively restrict synchronized session control to the host device alone rather than permitting multiple devices to share control.
The court noted that the specification does not even use the term “web browsing interaction data,” and the single embodiment on which Samesurf relied was characterized in the patent itself as merely exemplary. Referencing Liebel-Flarsheim Co. in Medrad, Inc.the Federal Circuit explained that “even when the specification describes only a single embodiment, the claims of the patent will not be read restrictively unless the patentee has demonstrated a clear intention to limit the claim scope,” which the record did not show here.
Ultimately, the court also rejected Samesurf’s contention that the Board’s broader construction rendered the invention inoperable. It found no evidence in the record that partially filled webpages would be incapable of satisfying what the claims require, namely, operating an application based on web browsing interaction data to access a website server. Having agreed with the Board’s construction of the disputed term, the CAFC concluded that the record supported the obviousness determination, affirming the PTAB’s judgment and holding that “all claims of the ‘145 patent are unpatentable based on obviousness.”
