Claim containing the term "means for individually cueing said callers of said select subset to prompt digital signals" was invalid as a means-plus-function limitation lacking structure beyond a general purpose computer. "[Plaintiff] argues that the recited function is shown by step 72 of Figure 2 [of the specification]. . . . Specifically, [plaintiff's expert] says that in box 72 the caller is cued and the answer of the caller is registered. However, a simple box with the term 'register answer' is not an algorithm. [Plaintiff's expert] also cites to two other passages in the patent. These passages do not describe any algorithm for 'individually cueing said callers of said select subset to prompt digital signals.' Rather they simply indicate that the interface processor poses questions to the callers. Based on the foregoing, this Court finds that claim 5 of the [asserted] patent is invalid as indefinite."
Ronald A Katz Technology Licensing L P v. Time Warner Cable Inc., 2-07-cv-02134
(CACD August 13, 2009, Order) (Klausner, J.)