Beauregard claims

I thought it might be of interest to prosecutors who write software patent applications that one of the claims at issue in yesterday’s Oracle v. Parallel Networks, 2009-1183 (Fed. Cir. April 28, 2010)  decision concerned a Beauregard claim.  Perhaps the Federal Circuit has had a chance to review other Beauregard claims; but, other than in Ariba v. Emptoris, 2009-1230 (Fed. Cir. Jan. 8, 2010) this is the only one that I’ve noticed.

While method, apparatus, and Beauregard (article of manufacture) claims were at issue, the court selected the Beauregard claim as the representative claim in its opinion.  Judge Rader wrote:


Parallel Networks asserts that certain Oracle products infringe claims 1–5 and 7–11 of the ’554 patent and claims 2 and 16 of the ’335 patent. Claim 11 of the ’554 patent is representative:

A machine readable medium having stored thereon data representing sequences of instructions, which when executed by a computer system, cause said computer system to perform the steps of:

routing a dynamic web page generation request from a Web server to a page server, said page server receiving said request and releasing said Web server to process other requests wherein said routing step further includes the steps of intercepting said request at said Web server, routing said request from said Web server to a dispatcher, and dispatching said request to said page server;

processing said request, said processing being performed by said page server while said Web server concurrently processes said other requests; and

dynamically generating a Web page, said Web page including data retrieved from one or more data sources.

’554 patent col.10 ll.24–41 (emphases added). All asserted claims have the “releasing” limitation, the “intercepting” limitation, and the “dispatching” limitation.

 The link to the court’s opinion is available here: [Link].

Comments are closed.