Particular weight is given to the Summary of the Invention section of the specification with regard to claim interpretation because it is presumed that the statements therein describe the invention as a whole, rather than only preferred embodiments. For example, the statements here in the Summary section explaining how the invention improves security by using a “two-layer encryption format” caused the corresponding claim term “secure” to require a two-pronged definition including not only data security but also anonymity. “The fact that the Summary of the Invention gives primacy to these attributes strongly indicates that the invention requires [them].” It may therefore be best to avoid including any characterizations in the Summary section beyond the features of the independent claims themselves.
Background / Facts: The patents being asserted here are directed to technology for providing security over networks such as the Internet. The claims recite a domain name service (“DNS”) system that resolves domain names and facilitates establishing “secure communication links.” There is no dispute that the word “secure” does not have a plain and ordinary meaning in this context, and so must be defined by reference to the specification. In this regard, the Background section of the specification frames the problem being addressed as the two-pronged issue of “provid[ing] [1] security and [2] anonymity for communications over the Internet.” The Summary section in turn begins by explaining how the invention improves security by using a “two-layer encryption format” known as the Tunneled Agile Routing Protocol, or TARP.
Issue(s): Whether the claim term “secure communication links” requires not only data security but also anonymity in view of the two-tiered descriptions in the specification.
Holding(s): Yes. “The fact that the Summary of the Invention gives primacy to these attributes strongly indicates that the invention requires more than just data security. … The fact that anonymity is ‘repeatedly and consistently’ used to characterize the invention strongly suggests that it should be read as part of the claim. … To be sure, the specification mechanically prefaces most passages with the phrase ‘according to one aspect of the present invention.’ [] But the Background and Summary of the Invention clearly identify the TARP protocol as a key part of the novel solution to the specific problem identified in the prior art.”