Integrated Claims Systems, LLC v. Travelers Indemnity Company

NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.

United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit ______________________

INTEGRATED CLAIMS SYSTEMS, LLC, Appellant

v.

TRAVELERS INDEMNITY COMPANY, Appellee ______________________

2018-1142, 2018-1143 ______________________

Appeals from the United States Patent and Trade- mark Office, Patent Trial and Appeal Board in Nos. IPR2016-00659, IPR2016-00660. ______________________

Decided: February 22, 2019 ______________________

JOHN F. WARD, Kelley Drye & Warren, LLP, New York, NY, argued for appellant. Also represented by DAVID LINDENBAUM.

JOSHUA GOLDBERG, Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, LLP, Washington, DC, argued for ap- pellee. Also represented by DANIEL FRANCIS KLODOWSKI, JAMES R. BARNEY; ROBERT L. BURNS, II, Reston, VA. ______________________

2 INTEGRATED CLAIMS SYSTEMS, LLC v. TRAVELERS INDEMNITY COMPANY

Before DYK, BRYSON, and CHEN, Circuit Judges. CHEN, Circuit Judge. Patent Owner Integrated Claim Systems, LLC (ICS) appeals from two inter partes review final written deci- sions by the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (Board) find- ing unpatentable claims 28–32 of U.S. Patent No. 6,338, 093 and claims 1–4, 14, 16, 19–21, 26, and 30–33 of U.S. Patent No. 7,694,129 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 for obvious- ness over certain prior art. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1295(a)(4)(A). Because ICS’s arguments lack merit, we affirm. The two patents are part of the same family and relate to a system for processing insurance claims that inte- grates images and claim form information into a single file as the two are transmitted from the sender (e.g., a doctor’s office) to the recipient (e.g., a claims processor at an insur- ance company). This court has previously issued two judg- ments summarily affirming, without opinion, Board unpatentability decisions on ICS patents directed to the same technology with similar specifications. Integrated Claims Systems, LLC v. Care N’ Care Insurance Company, Inc. and Trizetto Corp., Nos. 16-2527, 16-2733, 16-2734 (Fed. Cir. May 3, 2018); Integrated Claims Systems, LLC v. Travelers Lloyds of Texas Ins. Co., Nos. 16-2163, 16- 2164 (Fed. Cir. Apr. 11, 2017). At issue in this appeal is the term “field” in the claims found unpatentable. The only independent claim at issue in the ’129 patent reads: 1. A method of processing digital data and images, comprising: receiving: first data into identifiable fields to create a first set of filled identifiable fields, wherein at least one of the first set of filled

INTEGRATED CLAIMS SYSTEMS, LLC v. TRAVELERS 3 INDEMNITY COMPANY

identifiable fields contains at least one im- age; and second data into identifiable fields to cre- ate a second set of filled identifiable fields, wherein the second set of filled identifiable fields is a nonempty set, and wherein at least some of the first and sec- ond data are information that identifies the source of the first and second data; presenting a graphic user interface (GUI) compris- ing a set of fields, wherein at least one of the fields of the GUI contains an image from the first set of filled identifiable fields, and wherein at least one of the fields of the GUI is filled with data from the second set of filled identifiable fields; receiving an indication to proceed with processing data; and in response to receiving the indication: using data from at least one field of the second set of filled identifiable fields to complete at least one field in at least one data bank. ’129 patent col. 44 ll. 28–64 (emphasis added). 1

4 INTEGRATED CLAIMS SYSTEMS, LLC v. TRAVELERS INDEMNITY COMPANY

The Board construed “field” in the ’129 patent to mean “entries created for, at least, alphanumeric data or image data.” In support of its construction, the Board pointed to several passages from the ’129 patent. Id. at col. 10 ll. 55– 59, col. 12 ll. 50–55, col. 22 ll. 30–35, col. 32 ll. 23–28, col. 33 ll. 16–20; see also id. at col. 13 ll. 44–48, col. 23 ll. 23– 27. Based on our review of the patent, the Board’s con- struction is tied directly to and supported by the language of the specification, while ICS’s proposed construction, “data comprised of ‘label’ data and ‘content’ data,” is not. Thus, we find that the Board correctly construed “field” in the ’129 patent to mean “entries created for, at least, al- phanumeric data or image data.” ICS argues that the term “field” in the phrase “identi- fiable fields” means something different from its use in the phrase “fields of the GUI.” We disagree. We have coun- seled that “claim terms are normally used consistently throughout the patent” such that the usage of a term in one claim can often illuminate the meaning of the same term in both the same claim and other claims. Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1314 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc); Gillespie v. Dywidag Systems Intern., USA, 501 F.3d 1285, 1291 (Fed. Cir. 2007). We see no basis in the record for why “fields” should mean something different in each of these phrases. Rather, we conclude that the Board’s construction of the term “field” makes sense in both phrases and reject all of ICS’s claim construction ar- guments. Under the Board’s correct construction of “field,” we find ICS’s remaining arguments unpersuasive. In partic- ular, we find the Board’s findings as to how the claim lim- itations involving the term “field” were disclosed in the prior art supported by substantial evidence and accord- ingly affirm the Board’s decision as to unpatentability of the claims-at-issue. AFFIRMED

INTEGRATED CLAIMS SYSTEMS, LLC v. TRAVELERS 5 INDEMNITY COMPANY

COSTS Costs to Appellee.

Footnotes

[1] Neither side argues that the term “field” is used in a substantively different manner in the ’093 patent. Due to the strong similarity in the specifications amongst this family of ICS patents, we treat this ’129 patent claim as representative for purposes of the construction of the term “field.”