Digest of Fenner Investments, Ltd., v. Cellco Partnership, Nos. 2014-1196, 2014-1197, 2014-1198, 2014-1199, 2014-1200 (Fed. Cir. Feb. 10, 2015) (precedential). No. 2013-1640 (Fed. Cir. Feb. 12, 2015) (precedential). On appeal from E.D. Tex. Before Newman, Schall, Hughes.

Procedural Posture: Plaintiff appealed summary judgment of non-infringement. CAFC affirmed.

  • Claim Construction: The district court did not err in construing the term “personal identification number” to mean that it must be associated with an individual and not a device. The district court properly relied on the written description and the prosecution history because both included express statements that distinguished the personal identification number as being associated with a user and not a device. The CAFC rejected the Appellant’s claim differentiation argument because the doctrine of claim differentiation cannot enlarge the meaning of a claim beyond what is supported in the written description or relieve limitations imposed by the prosecution history. The CAFC also held that the claimed steps could still be performed under the district court’s construction in rejecting Appellant’s argument the construction rendered the patented invention inoperable.