IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURTFOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

TYLER DIVISION

SYBASE, INC.

Plaintiff

vs.

VERTICA SYSTEMS, INC.

Defendant

§§§§§ CASE NO. 6:08 CV 24§§§§

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

The Court issued an order on the Court’s preliminary determination of disputed terms of the

’229 Patent on November 9, 2009 (Docket No. 139). This Memorandum Opinion and Order

construes the disputed terms in U.S. Patent No. 5,794,229 (the “’229 Patent”). Furthermore, after

considering the parties’ written submissions and oral argument, the Court DENIES Defendant

Vertica Systems, Inc.’s Motion for Summary Judgment on Indefiniteness (Docket No. 116) as to

claim 1 and GRANTS the motion as to claim 16. Because claims 17–24 depend on claim 16, which

is invalid for indefiniteness, claims 17–24 are likewise invalid. Thus, there is no need to construe

disputed terms from claims 17–24.

BACKGROUND

Plaintiff Sybase, Inc. (“Sybase”) alleges that Defendant Vertica Systems, Inc. (“Vertica”) has

infringed the ’229 Patent. The ’229 Patent, entitled “Database System with Methodology for Storing

a Database Table by Vertically Partitioning all Columns of the Table,” concerns data storage format

and arrangement within a database to facilitate retrieval of data on an “analytical” basis (i.e., vertical

1

storage) rather than a “record” basis (i.e., horizontal storage). In “record” based data storage, data

is stored by row, where each row has multiple data fields. Each row of data is a “record.” The data

records (i.e., rows) are then placed end-to-end, as a continuous string of rows, into a data page. The

data pages are connected or linked together using page pointers to form a page chain. In contrast,

in “analytical” based data storage, the individual data fields (i.e., columns) of the data records are

stored as cells on a data page. The arrangement of data by column rather than by row facilitates data

retrieval for purposes of making analytical assessments of the data as to particular attributes of the

data records. The column entries of each record are placed end-to-end, as a continuous string of

cells, into a data page. The data pages are connected or linked together to form a page chain.

Storing data on an analytical basis provides improved data compression and facilitates large block

transfers.

APPLICABLE LAW

“It is a ‘bedrock principle’ of patent law that ‘the claims of a patent define the invention to

which the patentee is entitled the right to exclude.’” Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1312

(Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc) (quoting Innova/Pure Water Inc. v. Safari Water Filtration Sys., Inc., 381

F.3d 1111, 1115 (Fed. Cir. 2004)). In claim construction, courts examine the patent’s intrinsic

evidence to define the patented invention’s scope. See id.; C.R. Bard, Inc. v. U.S. Surgical Corp.,

388 F.3d 858, 861 (Fed. Cir. 2004); Bell Atl. Network Servs., Inc. v. Covad Commc’ns Group, Inc.,

262 F.3d 1258, 1267 (Fed. Cir. 2001). This intrinsic evidence includes the claims themselves, the

specification, and the prosecution history. See Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1314; C.R. Bard, Inc., 388 F.3d

at 861. Courts give claim terms their ordinary and accustomed meaning as understood by one of

ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention in the context of the entire patent. Phillips, 415

2

F.3d at 1312–13; Alloc, Inc. v. Int’l Trade Comm’n, 342 F.3d 1361, 1368 (Fed. Cir. 2003).

The claims themselves provide substantial guidance in determining the meaning of particular

claim terms. Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1314. First, a term’s context in the asserted claim can be very

instructive. Id. Other asserted or unasserted claims can also aid in determining the claim’s meaning

because claim terms are typically used consistently throughout the patent. Id. Differences among

the claim terms can also assist in understanding a term’s meaning. Id. Courts presume a difference

in meaning and scope when a patentee uses different phrases in separate claims. Id. at 1314–15. For

example, when a dependent claim adds a limitation to an independent claim, it is presumed that the

independent claim does not include the limitation. Id. However, the doctrine of claim differentiation

is not a “hard and fast rule,” and courts cannot use the doctrine to broaden claims beyond their

correct scope, determined in light of the intrinsic record and relevant extrinsic evidence. Seachange

Int’l, Inc. v. C-COR, Inc., 413 F.3d 1361, 1369 (Fed. Cir. 2005); see also Phillips, 415 F.3d at

1312–15.

“[C]laims ‘must be read in view of the specification, of which they are a part.’” Id. (quoting

Markman v. Westview Instruments, Inc., 52 F.3d 967, 979 (Fed. Cir. 1995) (en banc)). “[T]he

specification ‘is always highly relevant to the claim construction analysis. Usually, it is dispositive;

it is the single best guide to the meaning of a disputed term.’” Id. (quoting Vitronics Corp. v.

Conceptronic, Inc., 90 F.3d 1576, 1582 (Fed. Cir. 1996)); Teleflex, Inc. v. Ficosa N. Am. Corp., 299

F.3d 1313, 1325 (Fed. Cir. 2002). This is true because a patentee may define his own terms, give

a claim term a different meaning than the term would otherwise possess, or disclaim or disavow the

claim scope. Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1316. In these situations, the inventor’s lexicography governs.

Id. Also, the specification may resolve ambiguous claim terms “where the ordinary and accustomed

3

meaning of the words used in the claims lack sufficient clarity to permit the scope of the claim to be

ascertained from the words alone.” Teleflex, Inc., 299 F.3d at 1325. But, “‘[a]lthough the

specification may aid the court in interpreting the meaning of disputed claim language, particular

embodiments and examples appearing in the specification will not generally be read into the

claims.’” Comark Commc’ns, Inc. v. Harris Corp., 156 F.3d 1182, 1187 (Fed. Cir. 1998) (quoting

Constant v. Advanced Micro-Devices, Inc., 848 F.2d 1560, 1571 (Fed. Cir. 1988)); see also Phillips,

415 F.3d at 1323.

The prosecution history is another tool to supply the proper context for claim construction

because a patent applicant may also define a term in prosecuting the patent. Home Diagnostics, Inc.,

v. Lifescan, Inc., 381 F.3d 1352, 1356 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (“As in the case of the specification, a patent

applicant may define a term in prosecuting a patent.”). The doctrine of prosecution history

disclaimer “limits the interpretation of claims so as to exclude any interpretation that may have been

disclaimed or disavowed during prosecution in order to obtain claim allowance.” Omeg Eng’g Inc.

v. Raytek Corp., 334 F.3d 1314, 1323 (Fed. Cir. 2003). For the doctrine to apply, the disclaimer of

claim scope must be clear and unmistakable. Computer Docking Station Corp. v. Dell, Inc., 519

F.3d 1366, 1374 (Fed. Cir. 2008). Prosecution disclaimer does not apply where the prosecution

history is ambiguous. See id. at 1375.

Although extrinsic evidence can be useful, it is “‘less significant than the intrinsic record in

determining the legally operative meaning of claim language.’” Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1317 (quoting

C.R. Bard, Inc., 388 F.3d at 862). Technical dictionaries and treatises may help a court understand

the underlying technology and the manner in which one skilled in the art might use claim terms, but

technical dictionaries and treatises may provide definitions that are too broad or may not be

4

indicative of how the term is used in the patent. Id. at 1318. Similarly, expert testimony may aid

a court in understanding the underlying technology and determining the particular meaning of a term

in the pertinent field, but an expert’s conclusory, unsupported assertions as to a term’s definition is

entirely unhelpful to a court. Id. Generally, extrinsic evidence is “less reliable than the patent and

its prosecution history in determining how to read claim terms.” Id.

The patents in suit also contain means-plus-function limitations that require construction.

Where a claim limitation is expressed in “means plus function” language and does not recite definite

structure in support of its function, the limitation is subject to 35 U.S.C. § 112, ¶ 6. Braun Med., Inc.

v. Abbott Labs., 124 F.3d 1419, 1424 (Fed. Cir. 1997). In relevant part, 35 U.S.C. § 112, ¶ 6

mandates that “such a claim limitation ‘be construed to cover the corresponding structure . . .

described in the specification and equivalents thereof.’” Id. (citing 35 U.S.C. § 112, ¶ 6).

Accordingly, when faced with means-plus-function limitations, courts “must turn to the written

description of the patent to find the structure that corresponds to the means recited in the

[limitations].” Id.

Construing a means-plus-function limitation involves multiple inquiries. “The first step in

construing [a means-plus-function] limitation is a determination of the function of the means-plus-

function limitation.” Medtronic, Inc. v. Advanced Cardiovascular Sys., Inc., 248 F.3d 1303, 1311

(Fed. Cir. 2001). Once a court has determined the limitation’s function, “the next step is to

determine the corresponding structure disclosed in the specification and equivalents thereof.” Id.

A “structure disclosed in the specification is ‘corresponding’ structure only if the specification or

prosecution history clearly links or associates that structure to the function recited in the claim.” Id.

Moreover, the focus of the “corresponding structure” inquiry is not merely whether a structure is

5

capable of performing the recited function, but rather whether the corresponding structure is “clearly

linked or associated with the [recited] function.” Id.

CLAIM TERMS

“in a computer system/a database system”

Claims 1 and 16 of the ’229 Patent contain the terms “in a computer system/a database

system.” Sybase contends the terms mean “in a relational database management system.” Vertica

contends the terms require no construction, but argues in the alternative that the terms mean “a

system including a computer/a system including a database.”

Sybase argues that the plain language of claims 1 and 16 necessarily requires that the system

be a “relational database management system” because “any DBMS [data base management system]

that uses a database table is an RDBMS [relationship database management system].” Sybase’s

Opening Brief, Docket No. 107, at 11. Sybase further argues that the specification confirms that

the system is relational because it generally describes the invention as involving an RDBMS and

includes numerous references to SQL servers, commands, and statements, and SQL is a standard

database language for an RDBMS system. Vertica counters that “computer system” and “relational

database management system” are not coextensive and adopting Sybase’s proposed construction

would only create confusion. Vertica’s Responsive Brief, Docket No. 115, at 35. Vertica asserts

that the terms “computer system” and “database system” are more clear than Sybase’s proposed

construction and thus, there is no need to construe the terms.

Sybase’s proposed construction alters the plain meaning of the terms even when read in view

of the specification because the terms “computer system/database system” and “relational database

management system” are not coextensive. Generally, a “relational” database management system

6

refers to a database management system where the data and the relationship among the data is stored

in the form of database tables. Sybase’s Opening Brief, Docket No. 107, at 11. Sybase is correct

that the claims themselves require that the “computer system/database system” have a “database

storing a database table.” ’229 Patent, col. 47:37–38. However, Sybase’s proposed construction,

“relational database management system,” is unnecessary in view of the cited claim language in the

preamble referencing the use of tables. See ’229 Patent, col. 47:37–44.

The claim language is clear and understandable to the fact finder and any substitute for the

claim language is likely to cause confusion rather than aid. Thus, the terms do not require

construction.

“without regard to storage devices available to the system/irrespective of storage devicesavailable to the system”

Claims 1 and 16 of the ’229 Patent contain the terms “without regard to storage devices

available to the system/irrespective of storage devices available to the system.” Sybase contends the

terms mean “without regard to whether any particular column is stored on any particular storage

device.” Vertica contends the terms mean “storing each column without taking into account the

configuration of the storage devices.”

During prosecution of the ’229 Patent, the United States Patent and Trademark Office

(“PTO”) rejected all claims as obvious in view of Naecker, which taught vertical partitioning where

the individual column data in a database table may be stored separately on disks, and the Snellen

prior art reference, which taught linking of a plurality of pages. The disputed claim language was

added by Sybase during prosecution to distinguish the Naecker prior art reference. Specifically,

Sybase’s amendment first distinguished Naecker’s approach by clarifying that the ’229 Patent

7

invention breaks up the data vertically without regard to the storage devices (i.e., “without placing

a particular column on a particular disk”). Response to Office Action of July 23, 1997, received

January 16, 1998, at 8 (Docket No. 107-8). In contrast, the Naecker approach used vertical

partitioning “to place different columns on different disks to get better performance.” Id. at 9. In

addition, Sybase argued in its amendment that “the present invention is to break-up the data []

vertically regardless of the disk configuration.” Id. at 8.

Sybase argues the terms should be construed in accordance with the applicant’s

distinguishing argument (i.e., “without regard to whether any particular column is stored on any

particular storage device”). Vertica counters that Sybase’s proposed construction is improper

because it ignores the second argument it made during prosecution to distinguish Naecker. Instead,

Vertica argues that the terms should be construed in accordance with the applicant’s argument

regarding disk configuration (i.e., “storing each column without taking into account the configuration

of the storage devices”). Sybase counters that the applicants used the word “configuration” only to

show “the invention was agnostic as to whether a particular column was placed on a particular disk.”

Sybase’s Opening Brief, Docket No. 107, at 15. Sybase further contends that Vertica’s use of

“configuration” is Vertica’s attempt to read additional limitations into “disk configuration,” such as

size, speed, and other aspects of the disks—limitations that had nothing to do with the applicants’

amendment—and will only confuse the fact finder.

Sybase’s arguments to the examiner constitute a disclaimer of Naecker’s approach of separate

columns on separate disks, but the claim amendment’s limitation is not so narrowly restricted to

avoiding Naecker’s approach that the construction must be made coextensive with Naecker. Rather,

the limitation addresses vertical partitioning “regardless of the disk configuration.” Response to

8

Office Action of July 23, 1997, received January 16, 1998, at 8 (Docket No. 107-8). Vertica’s

proposed construction, particularly when read in view of the disclaimer Sybase made as to Naecker,

serves to exclude Naecker’s approach to vertical partitioning that places a particular column on a

particular disk. Naecker’s approach takes into account the “configuration” of the storage devices

because separate storage devices can be used to store separate columns. However, Sybase’s concern

that “configuration” is too broad of a term has merit. The term “configuration” is clearly being used

in the prosecution history to refer to the “arrangement” of the disk storage devices. Accordingly, the

Court construes the terms “without regard to storage devices available to the system/irrespective of

storage devices available to the system” to mean “storing each column without taking into account

the arrangement of the storage devices.”

“data page/data pages”

Claims 1 and 16 of the ’229 Patent contain the terms “data page/data pages.” Sybase

contends the terms mean “a logical structure for containing one or more cells (i.e., column value for

a record).” Vertica contends the terms have an ordinary meaning of “a fixed unit of physical

storage.” The parties’ dispute centers around three issues: (1) whether a “data page” is a logical or

physical structure, (2) whether there is a requirement that the “data page” contain “cells,” and (3)

whether the size of a “data page” is fixed.

Sybase argues that it is clear from the plain claim language that a data page is a structure

containing data values and specifically, “[i]t is a ‘logical’ structure because the patent teaches that

the concept of a ‘table’ is purely a logical one, as opposed to a physical entity.” Sybase’s Opening

Brief, Docket No. 107, at 16. Vertica counters that a “data page” is where actual data physically

resides on the storage device. Vertica contends that the patent specifically distinguishes a “data

9

page” from a logical structure, such as a table representation, and points to Figure 3B of the patent,

produced below, to illustrate the distinction.

Figure 3B of the ’229 Patent

The top half of Figure 3B contains a table representation labeled “Customers Table (Logical

View),” while the bottom half shows the column-based data storage in “data pages” that form a

“page chain.” Vertica contends the table is the “logical view” because the table representation is not

actually how the data is stored. Rather, the “data pages” represent how the data is physically stored

on disk. Sybase agrees that the data values comprising a “data page” may be physically stored, but

contends that “the notion of a ‘data page’ is simply a logical construct for referring to that data.”

Sybase’s Reply Brief, Docket No. 124, at 5. The written specification describes a “data page” in

terms of a physical area on a storage disk and Figures 3A and 3B illustrate the same. Further, the

Date Textbook, which was cited and relied upon by the applicants and incorporated by reference into

10

the ’229 Patent, confirms the physical nature of a “data page.” See ’229 Patent, col. 1:51–55; C.J.

DATE, AN INTRODUCTION TO DATABASE SYSTEMS, 57–59 (5th ed., vol. 1 1990); see also Telemac

Cellular Corp. v. Topp Telecom, Inc., 247 F.3d 1316, 1329 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (“When a document is

‘incorporated by reference’ into a host document, such as a patent, the referenced document becomes

effectively part of the host document as if it were explicitly contained therein.”).

Vertica also opposes Sybase’s inclusion of a requirement for “cells” in its proposed

construction. Vertica contends that “cell” is used inconsistently in the patent to mean both (1) a

piece of column data in the logical record table and (2) an area in a physical data page that holds a

piece of column data, and thus, using “cell” in the claim construction of “data page” would be

improper. Vertica further contends that the independent claims in the patent do not require a “data

page” to store data values in “cells,” whereas other claims explicitly require “cells.” See ’229 Patent,

col. 50:1–2 (“data pages . . . store data values in fixed-length cells”). Sybase argues that Figures 3B

and 3C support Sybase’s proposed construction because the figures show a database table with rows

and column fields, each column containing a series of “column values” or “data values” which are

stored as separate “cells” in the data page. Neither the specification nor the claim language supports

the inclusion of a requirement for “cells” in the claim limitation as Sybase proposes.

Vertica further contends that a “data page” is a fixed unit of storage. More specifically,

Vertica argues that “data pages” organized in a particular storage device are of a fixed size, but the

sizes of the “data pages” may vary from storage device to storage device. Sybase argues that such

a construction is impermissible given the specification’s disclosure of an embodiment where “page

sizes are multiples of the physical block size” and “the system can create buffers of different page

sizes.” ’229 Patent, col. 17:54–60. Sybase further argues that the patent expressly teaches that the

11

size of a data page changes when compressed before storage and that limiting “data page” to a fixed

unit reads the concept of compression out of the patent. See ’229 Patent, col. 23:36–37 (“the 64K

buffer . . . compresses down to one 4K block”). Limiting “data page” to a fixed unit does not read

the compression concept out of the patent. In the ’229 Patent, compression of the data values takes

place independent of the size of the physical storage space allocated to a “data page” on the disk.

See ’229 Patent, col. 16:8–16. The Buffer Manager compresses the data that is sent out to the disk

so that the data page, which is of a fixed size, can effectively hold more data. However, there are

nevertheless the same number of bits in a page of compressed data and a page of uncompressed data.

The size of the page in terms of what number of bit locations are present stays the same.

“Data page” is a technical term with an ordinary meaning as proposed by Vertica. Vertica’s

proposed construction is consistent with the specification, and Sybase’s proposed construction is

improper in all respects. Accordingly, the Court adopts Vertica’s construction and construes the

terms “data page/data pages” to mean “fixed unit(s) of physical storage.”

“creating for each column . . . at least one associated data page for storing data values for thecolumn”

Claim 1 of the ’229 Patent contains the term “creating for each column . . . at least one

associated data page for storing data values for the column.” Although the term was initially

disputed, the parties now agree that the term requires no construction. The Court agrees. The claim

language is clear and understandable to the fact finder and thus does not require construction.

“data values for each particular column . . . are all stored together/stores together all of thedata values for a particular column”

Claims 1 and 16 of the ’229 Patent contain the terms “data values for each particular column

. . . are all stored together/stores together all of the data values for a particular column.” Sybase

12

contends the terms mean “each column comprises a plurality of cells (i.e., column value for a

record), which are arranged on at least one data page in a contiguous fashion.” Vertica contends the

terms require no construction, but argues in the alternative that the terms mean “creating a group of

one or more data pages per column for storing the data values for each column.”

Sybase argues that its proposed construction is supported by the plain claim language, which

requires that “data values for each particular column of a database table are all stored together.” ’229

Patent, col. 47:50–55. In addition, Sybase argues that the specification teaches that “[e]ach column

comprises a plurality of ‘cells’ (i.e., column value for a record), which are arranged on a data page

in a contiguous fashion.” ’229 Patent, Abstract, col. 4:8–10; see also ’229 Patent, col. 15:10–11, col.

13:12–39, Figs. 3B–3C. Sybase’s proposed construction includes a limitation from the specification

to “contiguous” placement, but this characterization is unnecessary and not supported by the claim

language. Further, Sybase’s requirement that “data values” are necessarily “cells” rewrites the claim

to include a limitation that is not expressed in the claim language. Accordingly, the Court rejects

Sybase’s proposed construction as overly limiting.

The claim language is clear and understandable to the fact finder and any substitute for the

claim language is likely to cause confusion rather than aid. Thus, the term does not require

construction.

“linking together” and “page chain”

Claim 1 of the ’229 Patent contains the term “linking together,” and claims 1 and 16 contain

the term “page chain.” The relevant claim language is “linking together . . . at least one data page

associated with the column to form a page chain for the column.” ’229 Patent, col. 47:56–58. The

two terms are sufficiently related to merit a single discussion of the process of “linking together”

data pages to form a “page chain.”

13

Sybase contends “linking together” means “connecting or associating,” while Vertica

contends the term means “connecting a series of pages one after another.” Sybase argues that it is

clear from the claim language that data pages are both “linked together” and “associated” with a

column. Vertica counters that “linking” cannot mean both “connecting” and “associating” because

“associating” is broader than “connecting.” Sybase’s proposed inclusion of “associating” appears

to be directly related to Sybase’s argument that B-Trees and system catalogs, in addition to page

pointers, are covered by claim 1. Indeed, B-Tree indexes and system catalogs generally “connect”

data pages by “associating” them. However, the claim uses the term “linking together,” not

“associating.” Even the ordinary meaning of “linking,” apart from the ’229 Patent specification,

does not have such a broad meaning as “connecting or associating.”

Vertica contends that “linking together” is illustrated in Figures 3A–3C of the patent and the

figures’ accompanying text. Vertica argues that the data pages are “linked together” by “connecting

(via the page references) each page to each neighboring page in a series, one after another.”

Vertica’s Responsive Brief, Docket No. 115, at 24; see also ’229 Patent, col. 13:4–6 (referring to

“linked” data pages as “neighbors”). Sybase counters that Vertica’s proposal limits the claim to a

preferred embodiment and violates the doctrine of claim differentiation. Sybase further argues that

claim 6, which depends from claim 1, is specifically directed to using “a pointer for referencing

another data page,” and thus, a presumption arises that the scope of “linking together” in claim 1 is

not limited to just “pointers.” ’229 Patent, col. 48:15–16.

Sybase contends that Vertica is attempting to limit the claim to “page pointers” that connect

the pages and order them sequentially as described in the specification and illustrated in the figures.

Sybase contends that “page pointers” are only one disclosed way of linking data pages to form a page

chain because the patent also discloses the use of a system catalog, B-Tree, or block map to link data

14

pages. For example, the specification states that “[a]ctual connection between the pages is typically

achieved using conventional page pointers, such as the forward-referencing page pointers.” ’229

Patent, col. 13:7–9 (emphasis added). Vertica counters that the word typically is referring to the

forward-referencing page pointers and that there are other types of page pointers and references that

could achieve the connection between data pages. Vertica further argues that the system catalog, B-

Tree, or block map “‘alternatives’ work both with systems using page chains and those that [do

not].” Vertica’s Responsive Brief, Docket No. 115, at 33. Indeed, while these techniques may

“associate” data pages, they do not “link together” the data pages to form “page chains.” In addition,

because the specification refers to “stor[ing] rows of records arranged in a list of data pages (i.e.,

page ‘chain’),” ’229 Patent, col. 8:53–55, Sybase argues that a list can also be used to link or chain

data pages. Vertica counters that a “list,” as used in the patent, is a technical term used in the sense

of a “linked list,” which utilizes pointers that point to the next record in the list.

The patent consistently describes “linking together” as connecting a series of data pages one

after another using references in the data pages. Further, Figure 3B shows the data pages side by side

and illustrates the reference (i.e., page pointer labeled “PG PTR”) in the right bottom corner of each

data page. Vertica’s proposed construction uses the term “reference” and is not limited specifically

to page pointers. Thus, Vertica’s proposal does not limit the claim to a preferred embodiment and

the doctrine of claim differentiation is not applicable. Vertica’s proposed construction is consistent

with the ordinary meaning of “linking” and its use in the specification, as well as the figures

depicting data pages arranged in sequence. Thus, the Court adopts Vertica’s proposed construction

and construes the term “linking together” to mean “connecting a series of pages one after another.”

Sybase contends “page chain” means “a collection of one or more associated data pages,”

while Vertica contends the term means “a sequence of pages connected by a reference in each

15

preceding page to each successive page.” Like its “linking together” proposal, Sybase’s proposed

construction incorporates broad words such as “collection” and “associated.” Vertica contends that

the word “chain” connotes more than a mere collection or association of data pages. Sybase’s

proposed construction, which expands the claim scope to merely associating data pages in any

possible way, encompasses a broader scope than sought by the patentee and allowed by the PTO.

Sybase again argues that Vertica’s proposed construction of “page chain” attempts to limit the claim

to a preferred embodiment of “page pointers” and violates the doctrine of claim differentiation.

These arguments fail for the same reasons explained above.

Vertica’s proposed construction of “page chain” is consistent with the term’s use in the

specification. Accordingly, the Court adopts Vertica’s construction and construes the term “page

chain” to mean “a sequence of pages connected by a reference in each preceding page to each

successive page.”

“linking together all of said at least one data page”

Claim 1 of the ’229 Patent contains the term “linking together all of said at least one data

page.” Vertica contends the term is indefinite. After a review of the arguments and relevant

evidence, the Court concludes that the term “linking together all of said at least one data page” meets

the definiteness requirement of 35 U.S.C. § 112, ¶2 .

A claim is invalid as indefinite under 35 U.S.C. § 112, ¶ 2 if the claim fails to particularly

point out and distinctly claim the subject matter the applicants regard as the invention. The primary

purpose of the definiteness requirement is to ensure public notice of the scope of the patentee’s legal

protection, such that interested members of the public can determine whether or not they infringe.

Halliburton Energy Servs., Inc. v. M-I, LLC, 514 F.3d 1244, 1249 (Fed. Cir. 2008). Thus, the

definiteness inquiry focuses on how a skilled artisan understands the claims, and a claim is indefinite

16

if the “accused infringer shows by clear and convincing evidence that a skilled artisan could not

discern the boundaries of the claim based on the claim language, the specification, and the

prosecution history, as well as her knowledge of the relevant art area.” Id. at 1249–50. “If the

meaning of the claim is discernible, even though the task may be formidable and the conclusion may

be one over which reasonable persons will disagree, . . . the claim [is] sufficiently clear to avoid

invalidity on indefiniteness grounds.” Exxon Res. & Eng'g Co. v. United States, 265 F.3d 1371,

1375 (Fed. Cir. 2001). Thus, a claim is indefinite only if its meaning and scope are “insolubly

ambiguous.” Id.

Vertica argues that the literal language of the claim is defective because it requires the

“linking together” of a single data page, which is impossible, and the specification only discloses the

linking of two or more pages while the plain claim language only requires “at least one data page.”

Because one data page cannot be “linked together,” Vertica contends that this technical defect makes

the claim insolubly ambiguous and indefinite. Sybase counters that one of ordinary skill in the art

would understand that “where a data structure is required to ‘link together’ a collection of objects,

the linking structure is created whether there is one object or multiple objects in the collection.”

Sybase’s Indefiniteness Response, Docket No. 126, at 4. “At least one,” as a matter of law, means

a claim may be satisfied by “one” or “more than one.” z4 Tech., Inc. v. Microsoft Corp., 507 F.3d

1340, 1349 (Fed. Cir. 2007). The specification teaches that data pages “may be connected or linked

to other data pages to form a page chain.” See ’229 Patent, 13:12–25, 13:25–35. Sybase contends

that, when read in view of the specification, the claim language clearly indicates that storage may

be in a single data page or may overflow into a linked data page. The Court agrees.

One of ordinary skill in the art would understand the scope of the claim and be able to

determine what constitutes infringement. Because Defendants have not shown by clear and

17

convincing evidence that the term “linking together all of said at least one data page” is indefinite,

the Court DENIES in part Defendant Vertica Systems, Inc.’s Motion for Summary Judgment on

Indefiniteness (Docket No. 116) for this term in claim 1. In addition, the claim language is clear and

understandable to the fact finder and any substitute for the claim language is likely to cause

confusion rather than aid. Thus, the term does not require construction.

“large block input/output transfer”

Claims 3 and 4 of the ’229 Patent contain the term “large block input/output transfer.”

Sybase contends the term means: “A large block is a 64k or larger block. Large block input/output

transfers are transfer of 64k or larger blocks to and from a storage device.” Vertica contends the

term requires no construction, but argues in the alternative that the term means “substantially larger

than 4 kilobytes.”

Claim 3 is directed to “receiving a query which requires the database to retrieve from storage

all of the data pages for a particular column; and retrieving the data pages for the particular column

using large block input/output transfer for the computer system.” ’229 Patent, col. 47:65–67 and

col. 48:1–3 (emphasis added). In their proposed constructions, the parties disagree as to the

minimum size of a “large block.” Sybase asserts that the ’229 Patent gives an example of a “large

block” as a block of 64k, and a “small block” as a block of 4k. In addition, Sybase argues that the

specification teaches that “block size” means the “minimum size of a physical I/O [input/output]

operation.” Sybase’s Opening Brief, Docket No. 107, at 28 (emphasis added). Thus, Sybase

contends that 64k should be the minimum size of a “large block” because it is the only example of

a large block input/output transfer size in the patent. Vertica argues that the ’229 Patent does not

state at which point a block becomes a “large block” and the Court should not attempt to add a

18

degree of precision that the patent does not provide. Vertica’s Responsive Brief, Docket No. 115,

at 37. Although Vertica contends that the term requires no construction, it proposes in the alternative

that a “large block” is “substantially larger than 4k.” Sybase counters that Vertica’s alternative

proposed construction is vague and will be unhelpful to the fact finder because it offers no

explanation as to what it means by “substantially larger.”

The specification describes a “large block input/output transfer” as a transfer of data pages

having data values from many data records at one time rather than making multiple transfers of data

pages having data values from only a few data records. See ’229 Patent, col. 9:46–67 and col.

10:1–24. The contrast is actually between retrieval from storage of column-based data pages (i.e.,

“large blocks”) and retrieval from storage of row-based data pages (i.e., “small blocks”). See id.

Vertica is correct that the specification does not describe 64k as being the minimum block size for

a “large block” transfer. Both the claims and the specification refer to “transfer” and “transferring.”

Indeed, when the term is read in view of the specification by one skilled in the art, the real focus in

not on the actual size of the “large block” in kilobytes, but rather on the process of transferring the

“large block.” Accordingly, the Court construes the term “large block input/output transfer” to mean

“transferring at one time data pages having data values from many rows of data records.”

“includes a selective one of [list of items]”

Claim 11 of the ’229 Patent contains the term “includes a selective one of [list of items].”

Sybase contends the term means “is one of . . . ,” while Vertica contends the term requires no

construction. Vertica’s proposed construction is not materially different than the claim language

itself and there is no real dispute regarding the meaning of the term. The claim language is clear and

understandable to the fact finder and thus does not require construction.

19

“page header”

Claim 14 of the ’229 Patent contains the term “page header.” Sybase contends the term

means “metadata that is associated with a data page.” Vertica contends the term means

“supplemental data at the beginning of a data page.” The parties dispute whether a “page header”

is limited to a particular location on a data page.

Sybase contends that the claim language does not require that the header be located at any

particular place on the data page and the specification supports its proposed construction. Vertica

counters that Sybase’s construction does not even require the metadata to be part of the data page

or located on the data page and this is not consistent with the specification. Vertica contends that

the conventional use of the term “header” indicates that it is located at the beginning of the data page

and the specification is consistent with this construction. See, e.g., ’229 Patent, col. 4:8–13 (“the

offset of any particular cell on a page can be quickly computed as a modulus of that cell (adjusted

for any header information to the page)”). Sybase counters that Vertica is attempting to limit “page

header” to a single visual depiction in Figures 3B and 3C and Figure 5, which show a “page header”

in the upper left corner of the data page.

The specification provides that a “page header” is used to store “housekeeping information,”

and a status flag stored in the page header indicates “whether the data page is a candidate for

compression and (optionally) what type of compression is best suited for the data on that page.”

’229 Patent, col. 4:19–22. Vertica’s proposed construction is consistent with the specification and

the ordinary meaning of header. Accordingly, the Court adopts Vertica’s construction and construes

the term “page header” to mean “supplemental data at the beginning of a data page.”

20

“means for creating a vertical partition for each and every column of the database table, eachvertical partition having data values for only a single column of the database table”

Claim 16 of the ’229 Patent contains the term “means for creating a vertical partition for each

and every column of the database table, each vertical partition having data values for only a single

column of the database table.” The parties agree that the term is a means-plus-function limitation

that should be construed pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 112, ¶ 6. However, the parties disagree as to

function performed by the limitation and its corresponding structure.

Sybase contends the function of the “means for creating . . .” limitation is “creating a vertical

partition for each and every column of the database table,” while Vertica contends the function

further includes the dependent clause “each vertical partition having data values for only a single

column of the database table.” Both parties’ proposed constructions are derived from the claim

language. Sybase argues that because the limitation is “means for creating a vertical partition . . .,”

the additional dependent clause merely describes the “vertical partition,” not the function of

“creating a vertical partition.” Sybase’s Indefiniteness Response, Docket No. 126, at 19–20. Vertica

contends that cropping the recited function as Sybase proposes would “read critical functional

language out of the claim.” Vertica’s Indefiniteness Motion, Docket No. 116, at 18. Vertica’s

identification of the function is correct. The content of the vertical partition is the direct

consequence of its creation and therefore, part of the functional recitation of the function.

Accordingly, the specified function for the “means for creating . . .” limitation is “creating a vertical

partition for each and every column of the database table, each vertical partition having data values

for only a single column of the database table.”

Sybase contends that the corresponding structure for the “means for creating . . .” limitation

is:

21

[A] computer (e.g., server 230) with software including: (1) software (e.g., a table-level object) that breaks data down by column, handing off each column value to aparticular column object; (2) a column object (e.g., object instance of hs_dp class)that stores the data in cells; and (3) a method (e.g., Insert method) invoked by thecolumn object for placing the column values into cells, and all equivalents thereof.

Vertica contends that the corresponding structure is not disclosed in the specification and thus the

“means for creating . . .” limitation is indefinite.

A means-plus-function limitation is indefinite if the specification does not disclose sufficient

structure such that one skilled in the art would understand the structure as adequate to perform the

recited function. Intellectual Prop. Dev., Inc. v. UA-Columbia Cablevision of Westchester, Inc., 336

F.3d 1308, 1319 (Fed. Cir. 2003). To qualify as sufficient structure, the disclosed structure must

correspond to the recited function. Default Proof Credit Card Sys., Inc. v. Home Depot U.S.A., Inc.,

412 F.3d 1291, 1298 (Fed. Cir. 2005). A structure disclosed in the specification qualifies as

“corresponding” structure only if the specification or prosecution history clearly link or associate that

structure to the recited function. Id. The corresponding structure does not need to include all

necessary elements to enable the claimed invention, but the structure must include all structure that

actually performs the recited function. Id. Courts consider the entire specification to determine the

structure that is capable to perform the recited function. Id.

“In a means-plus-function claim in which the disclosed structure is a computer, or

microprocessor, programmed to carry out an algorithm, the disclosed structure is not the general

purpose computer, but rather the special purpose computer programmed to perform the disclosed

algorithm.” WMS Gaming, Inc. v. Int’l Game Tech., 184 F.3d 1339, 1349 (Fed. Cir. 1999).

Disclosure of a general purpose computer without a corresponding algorithm renders the means-plus-

22

function claim indefinite. Aristocrat Techs. Austl. Pty Ltd. v. Int’l Game Tech., 521 F.3d 1328,

1337–38 (Fed. Cir. 2008).

So long as the disclosure defines structure to render the bounds of the claim understandable

to one of ordinary skill in the art, the specification need not disclose a specific formula or

mathematical equation, and text or a flowchart may sufficiently disclose an algorithm. AllVoice

Computing PLC v. Nuance Comm’cns, Inc., 504 F.3d 1236, 1245 (Fed. Cir. 2007); see also WMS

Gaming, 184 F.3d at 1347–49; In re Freeman, 573 F.2d 1237, 1245–46 (C.C.P.A. 1978) (discussing

“algorithm” in the context of 35 U.S.C. § 101). However, if the specification merely states a

computer or microprocessor performs the claimed function, the specification does not disclose

adequate structure, and the claim is indefinite. Aristocrat Techs., 521 F.3d at 1337–38 (holding

claim indefinite, as the specification did not disclose sufficient structure where disclosure stated one

of ordinary skill in the art could program a computer with “appropriate programming” to perform

a “control means” function); Fisinar Corp. v. The DirecTV Group, Inc., 416 F. Supp. 2d 512, 518

(E.D. Tex. 2006) (Clark, J.) (holding claim that included “database editing means . . . for generating

. . . and embedding . . .” limitation was indefinite where the specification merely restated that

software performed the recited function); Gobelli Research Ltd. v. Apple Computer, Inc., 384 F.

Supp. 2d 1016, 1022–23 (E.D. Tex. 2005) (Ward, J.) (holding claim indefinite where patentee’s

proposed structure of “a microprocessor running a procedure call that sets aside resources, such as

a memory area” did not set forth an algorithm for performing the claimed “reallocating processing

resources as a function of task priority” function); see also Biomedino LLC v. Waters Techs., Inc.,

490 F.3d 946, 953 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (holding that claim that included “control means for

automatically operating said valving” limitation was indefinite, as the specification merely disclosed

23

a diagram with a box labeled “control” and a stated the invention “may be controlled automatically

by known differential pressure, valving[,] and control equipment”). Similarly, the specification does

not disclose sufficient structure if it simply describes the outcome of the claimed function and does

not disclose a computer programmed to execute a particular algorithm. Aristocrat Techs., 521 F.3d

at 1334–35.

Furthermore, the adequacy of the disclosed corresponding structure is inherently tied to the

scope of the limitation’s function. For example, if the function is broad and generally recited, the

description of the corresponding structure need not be very specific for one of ordinary skill in the

art to ascertain what the claim means. See, e.g., IP Innovation, LLC v. Red Hat, Inc, No. 2:07cv447,

2009 WL 2460982, at *10 (E.D. Tex. Aug. 10, 2009). In IP Innovation, the specification provided

that a “display system object” created display objects and that it may include “one or more data

structure and a number of procedures, and a data structure and procedure such as an editor or other

application could be called on by more than one display system object.” Id. In that case, this Court

found the disclosure of a “display system object” sufficient structure for the claimed functionality

of “generating display objects” because the language of the specification did more than just restate

the generating function. Id. Rather, it identified particular structure inclusive of data structures and

procedures, which was sufficiently detailed given the generalized function of “generating display

objects.” Id.

On the other hand, if the function is more narrowly recited, the description of the

corresponding structure must inherently be more specific to meet the requirement of 35 U.S.C. §

112, ¶ 6. Here, the function is “creating a vertical partition for each and every column of the

database table, each vertical partition having data values for only a single column of the database

24

table.” Because this function is narrow and specified in greater detail, the corresponding structure

must be set forth with more particularity. See Biomedino, 490 F.3d at 950 (“While the specification

must contain structure linked to claimed means, this is not a high bar: all one needs to do in order

to obtain the benefit of [§ 112, ¶ 6] is to recite some structure corresponding to the means in the

specification, as the statute states, so that one can readily ascertain what the claim means and comply

with the particularity requirement of [§ 112,] ¶ 2.”) (internal quotation marks omitted).

Because the parties do not dispute that the structure involves a computer with specialized

software, the question is whether there is sufficient disclosure of the various software elements

executed by the computer. Sybase identifies the basic algorithm for creating a vertical partition as:

“(1) taking each column value for a particular column and handing it to a structure for storing the

column values; (2) inserting the values into cells; and (3) repeating the same procedure to create a

vertical partition for each column in the database table.” Sybase’s Indefiniteness Response, Docket

No. 126, at 7. Sybase contends that Figures 3B-C (and accompanying text) illustrate the basic

algorithm, see ’229 Patent, col. 12:51–13:39, and the specification further explains the steps depicted

in Figures 3B-C:

To insert a record into a table, therefore, a table-level object breaks the data down bycolumn and then hands off each column value (user data) to a particular columnobject (i.e., object instance of hs_dp class). Each column object, in turn, invokes itsInsert method for placing the user data into cells.

’229 Patent, col. 44:36–41. Thus, Sybase argues that the specification discloses three corresponding

software structures that together perform the identified algorithm: (1) a table-level object; (2) a

column object (i.e., an object instance of the hs_dp class); and (3) an Insert method invoked by the

column object. Sybase’s Indefiniteness Response, Docket No. 126, at 8.

25

The crux of Vertica’s argument is that the specification fails to sufficiently disclose the

structure of the “table-level object.” The parties agree that the phrase “creating a vertical partition

for each and every column of the database table” means “separating all data in each column in the

database table from any data from any other column in the database table, such that all data in each

column can be read from storage without reading any data from any other column.” The “table-level

object” ensures that each vertical partition contains data from only a single column by “break[ing]

the data down by column and then hand[ing] off each column value (user data) to a particular

column object.” See ’229 Patent, col. 44:36–40. Thus, the “table-level object” is involved in the

separating function and is at least part of the structure for performing the claimed function.

Vertica contends that although the ’229 Patent mentions the existence of the “table-level

object,” the specification fails to describe the algorithms implementing the relevant methods of the

object and the data structures on which the methods operate. Sybase argues that the “table-level

object” is sufficiently disclosed in the specification because “[a]ccessing values from a record is a

function that any traditional row-oriented RDBMS must perform. . . . [and] further details of the

structure of a table-level object for performing such a function would be well known to [one of

ordinary skill in the art].” Sybase’s Indefiniteness Response, Docket No. 126, at 24. Vertica

responds that “[t]he issue is not whether there is enough description for someone to build the

invention (i.e., enablement); the issue is whether the patent clearly describes the claimed invention

(i.e., definiteness).

Whether a computer or another structure implements the function of a means-plus-function

limitation, the definiteness inquiry focuses on what one of ordinary skill in the art would understand

the patent discloses. AllVoice, 504 F.3d at 1240. Regardless of the level of skill of an ordinarily

26

skilled artisan, “[t]he inquiry is whether one of skill in the art would understand the specification

itself to disclose a structure, not simply whether that person would be capable of implementing that

structure.” Aristocrat Techs., 521 F.3d at 1337 (quoting Biomedino, 490 F.3d at 953). Further, “[a]

patentee cannot avoid providing specificity as to structure simply because someone of ordinary skill

in the art would be able to devise a means to perform the claimed function.” Blackboard, Inc. v.

Desire2Learn, Inc., 574 F.3d 1371, 1385 (Fed. Cir. 2009). In Blackboard, the plaintiff argued that

an algorithmic means-plus-function claim was not indefinite because “a person skilled in the art

could readily fashion a computer based means for performing the claimed function.” Id. The

Blackboard court instructed that

[t]he correct inquiry is to look at the disclosure of the patent and determine if one ofskill in the art would have understood that disclosure to encompass software for [theclaimed function] and been able to implement such a program, not simply whetherone of skill in the art would have been able to write such a software program. . . It isnot proper to look to the knowledge of one skilled in the art apart from andunconnected to the disclosure of the patent.

Id. (quoting Med. Instrumentation & Diagnostics Corp. v. Elekta AB, 344 F.3d 1205, 1212 (Fed. Cir.

2003)). Thus, the relevant inquiry is whether there is enough of a disclosure in the specification to

allow one skilled in the art to understand the disclosure encompassed a structure for a “table-level

object.”

When read by one skilled in the art, the specification provides that a “table-level object,” an

“object” being a tool for data manipulation, breaks the data down by column and then hands off each

column value (user data) to a particular column object (i.e., object instance of hs_dp class). An

“object” in object oriented programming includes data structures and methods that act on those

structures. Given the narrowly recited function of “creating a vertical partition for each and every

column of the database table, each vertical partition having data values for only a single column of

27

the database table,” the broad disclosure of a “table-level object” and the function it performs is not

sufficient algorithmic structure. See Finisar, 523 F.3d at 1340–41; Aristocrat Techs., 521 F.3d at

1334–35. The disclosure of a “table-level object” fails to identify the data structures and methods

that act on those structures. The specification merely provides a non-specific reference to a software

tool and fails to disclose the algorithm being executed to break down the data. Sybase contends that

using “prose descriptions and descriptive method names to describe [the] structure of the computer

system . . . describe[s] the structure sufficiently for [one of ordinary skill in the art] to later

implement it for a specific language and operating system.” Sybase’s Indefiniteness Response,

Docket No. 126, at 6. However, by failing to describe the means by which the “table-level object”

will break down the data, Sybase has in effect attempted to capture any possible means for achieving

that end. See Blackboard, 574 F.3d at 1385. This is the exact “pure functional claiming” that 35

U.S.C. § 112, ¶ 6 is intended to prevent. Id. (citing Aristocrat Techs., 521 F.3d at 1333).

The quid-pro-quo for invoking the claiming format of 35 U.S.C. § 112, ¶ 6 is that the

patentee must disclose adequate structure. See Biomedino, 490 F.3d at 950; In re Donaldson Co.,

16 F.3d 1189, 1195 (Fed. Cir. 1994) (en banc). Sybase has failed to show that it has done so. One

of ordinary skill in the art could not determine what constitutes infringement based on the disclosure

of “table-level object.” Accordingly, Vertica has shown by clear and convincing evidence that the

“means for creating . . .” term is indefinite, and the Court GRANTS in part Defendant Vertica

Systems, Inc.’s Motion for Summary Judgment on Indefiniteness (Docket No. 116) as to this term

in claim 16.

28

“means for transferring each vertical partition to and from the storage device, so that at leastsome data values for a particular column are stored together at a contiguous location on thestorage device”

Claim 16 of the ’229 Patent contains the term “means for transferring each vertical partition

to and from the storage device, so that at least some data values for a particular column are stored

together at a contiguous location on the storage device.” The parties agree that the term is a means-

plus-function limitation that should be construed pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 112, ¶ 6. However, the

parties disagree as to function performed by the limitation and its corresponding structure.

Sybase contends the function of the “means for transferring . . .” limitation is “transferring

each vertical partition to and from the storage device,” while Vertica contends the function further

includes the dependent clause “so that at least some data values for a particular column are stored

together at a contiguous location on the storage device.” Both parties’ proposed constructions are

derived from the claim language. Sybase argues that Vertica’s proposed function merely describes

the vertical partition that is transferred and “improperly attempts to incorporate the result of the

function into the function itself.” Sybase’s Indefiniteness Response, Docket No. 126, at 25. Vertica

argues that the requirement that at least some data values be stored at a contiguous location is a

specific functional requirement that specifies how the transferred data is stored on the storage device.

Vertica’s identification of the function is correct. The specified function is expressed as transfers

involving storage in a specified manner, i.e., contiguously on the storage device. Accordingly, the

specified function for the “means for transferring . . .” limitation is “transferring each vertical

partition to and from the storage device, so that at least some data values for a particular column are

stored together at a contiguous location on the storage device.”

29

Sybase contends that the corresponding structure for the “means for transferring . . .”

limitation is “a computer with software for one or more buffer objects and (1) a Read method for

reading data pages from a storage device, and (2) a Write method for writing data pages to a storage

device, and all equivalents thereof.” Vertica contends that the corresponding structure is not

disclosed in the specification and thus, the “means for transferring . . .” limitation is indefinite. It

is clear that the specification names the Read and Write methods as structure for performing the

recited function, but the parties dispute whether the details of those methods are sufficiently

disclosed. Vertica argues that “Sybase’s mere naming of a software object that allegedly performs

a recited function is legally insufficient for a means-plus-function limitation.” Vertica’s

Indefiniteness Motion, Docket No. 116, at 25. Sybase argues that because the patent teaches

contiguous storage and the specification clearly links the Read and Write methods as corresponding

structure for transferring the data values to storage, one of ordinary skill in the art “would know that

when some data values for a particular column are stored contiguously on the vertical partition, they

are stored contiguously on the storage device when transferred.” Sybase’s Indefiniteness Response,

Docket No. 126, at 26.

The specification does not disclose the structure for “transferring each vertical partition to

and from the storage device, so that at least some data values for a particular column are stored

together at a contiguous location on the storage device.” Sybase’s identified corresponding structure

is merely a statement of the “Read method” and “Write method” transferring functions and one of

ordinary skill in the art could not determine what constitutes infringement based on the disclosure

of these methods. Accordingly, Vertica has shown by clear and convincing evidence that the “means

for transferring . . .” limitation is indefinite and the Court GRANTS in part Defendant Vertica

30

Systems, Inc.’s Motion for Summary Judgment on Indefiniteness (Docket No. 116) as to this term

in claim 16.

“wherein said means for creating a vertical partition for each column includes: forming avertical page chain for each column, said vertical page chain storing only those data value ofthe records which correspond to the column for the page chain”

Claim 16 of the ’229 Patent contains the term “wherein said means for creating a vertical

partition for each column includes: forming a vertical page chain for each column, said vertical page

chain storing only those data value of the records which correspond to the column for the page

chain.” The parties agree that the term is a means-plus-function limitation that should be construed

pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 112, ¶ 6. However, the parties disagree as to function performed by the

limitation and its corresponding structure.

Sybase contends the function of the “means for . . . forming . . .” limitation is “forming a

vertical page chain for each column,” while Vertica contends the function further includes the

dependent clause “said vertical page chain storing only those data value of the records which

correspond to the column for the page chain.” Both parties’ proposed constructions are derived from

the claim language. Sybase argues that the description of the vertical page chain that is formed is

not part of the function. Sybase’s Indefiniteness Response, Docket No. 126, at 25. Similar to the

“means for creating . . .” limitation, where the content of a vertical partition was included in the

functional recitation of its creation, the content of a page chain is a direct consequence of its

formation and thus, part of the functional recitation of its formation. Accordingly, the specified

function for the “means for . . . forming . . .” limitation is “forming a vertical page chain for each

column, said vertical page chain storing only those data value of the records which correspond to the

column for the page chain.”

31

Sybase contends that the corresponding structure for the “means for . . . forming . . .”

limitation is “a computer with software including data structure for connecting or associating one

or more data pages for a particular column to form a vertical page chain for each column, including

via pointers, a system catalog, a B-tree, and/or a block array, and all equivalents thereof.” Vertica

contends that the corresponding structure is not disclosed in the specification and thus, the “means

for . . . forming . . .” limitation is indefinite.

Vertica contends that the system catalog, B-Tree and block array do not perform the

“chaining” function and are not “clearly linked to the function.” Vertica’s Indefiniteness Motion,

Docket No. 116, at 26. Vertica argues that because the disclosed pointers are the only links that

connect the pages in a page chain, the structure for “forming” a page chain must be “software that

creates the page pointers to link the various pages together.” Id. Vertica contends that the patent

does not describe the software that connects the pages with pointers and does not provide an

algorithm showing how the pages are connected to form a page chain. Sybase contends that every

data structure is clearly linked to the specified function and argues that “[p]ointers are well

understood by [one of ordinary skill in the art] and are used by linked lists, B-Trees, system catalogs,

and other structures.” Sybase’s Indefiniteness Response, Docket No. 126, at 27–28. Thus, Sybase

argues, “there is no need to describe how to ‘create’ page pointers to [one of ordinary skill in the

art].” Id. at 28.

Sybase does not identify what algorithm is executed to form a page chain, which necessarily

includes generating the references in the pages that point to successive pages in the chain. One of

ordinary skill in the art could not determine what constitutes infringement based on the insufficient

disclosure of corresponding structure. Accordingly, Vertica has shown by clear and convincing

32

evidence that the “means for . . . forming . . .” limitation is indefinite and the Court GRANTS in part

Defendant Vertica Systems, Inc.’s Motion for Summary Judgment on Indefiniteness (Docket No.

116) as to this term in claim 16.

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, the Court interprets the claim language in this case in the manner

set forth above. In addition, the Court DENIES Defendant Vertica Systems, Inc.’s Motion for

Summary Judgment on Indefiniteness (Docket No. 116) as to claim 1 and GRANTS the motion as

to claim 16. The claims with the disputed terms in bold are set forth in Appendix A. For ease of

reference, the Court’s claim interpretations are set forth in a table as Appendix B.

33

__________________________________LEONARD DAVISUNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

So ORDERED and SIGNED this 13th day of May, 2010.

APPENDIX A

U.S. Patent No. 5,794,229

1. In a computer system having a database storing a database table, said database tablepresenting user information as rows of data records divided into columns of information,each column representing a particular category of information, a method for storing thedatabase table by vertically partitioning each and every column of the database tablewithout regard to storage devices available to the system, the method comprising:

irrespective of storage devices available to the system, creating for each column ofthe database table at least one associated data page for storing data values for thecolumn;

for each data record of the database table, storing the data value for each column of thedata record in one of the at least one data page associated with the column, so thatdata values for each particular column of a database table are all storedtogether in at least one data page associated with said each particular column; and

for each column, linking together all of said at least one data page associated with thecolumn to form a page chain for the column, so that each page chain stores togetherall of the data values for a particular column of the database table.

2. The method of claim 1 wherein some of the data pages for a given page chain are storedcontiguously on a storage device.

3. The method of claim 2, further comprising:receiving a query which requires the database to retrieve from storage all of the data

pages for a particular column; andretrieving the data pages for the particular column using large block input/output

transfer for the computer system.

4. The method of claim 3, wherein each data page stores 64K of data values and wherein saidlarge block input/output transfer includes retrieving a 64K data page in a single readoperation.

7. The method of claim 1, further comprising:storing a system catalog referencing the first data page of each page chain, so that a

logical view of the database table in row/column format can be reconstructed byretrieving data values from said page chains.

11. The method of claim 10, wherein the aggregate operation includes a selective one of averagevalue, maximum value, minimum value and summation of values, for the particular column.

14. The method of claim 1, wherein each data page includes a page header specifying aparticular type of compression which is suitable for the data values stored on the data page.

34

16. A database system comprising:a computer having at least one processor and a memory;a storage device for storing a database table;a display device for presenting said database table to a user in row and column format;means for creating a vertical partition for each and every column of the database

table, each vertical partition having data values for only a single column of thedatabase table; and

means for transferring each vertical partition to and from the storage device, sothat at least some data values for a particular column are stored together at acontiguous location on the storage device

wherein said means for creating a vertical partition for each column includes:forming a vertical page chain for each column, said vertical page chain storing only

those data value of the records which correspond to the column for the pagechain.

35

APPENDIX B

Term or Phrase Court’s Construction

vertically partitioning each and everycolumn of the database table(Claim 1)

[AGREED] Separating all data in each columnin the database table from any data from anyother column in the database table, such that alldata in each column can be read from storagewithout reading any data from any other column.

in a computer system/A database system (Claims 1 & 16)

[no construction necessary]

database table (Claim 1)

[AGREED] a collection of data conceptuallyconstructed in row and column format

data record/record/rows of data records(Claims 1 & 16)

[AGREED] a row/rows in a database table

without regard to storage devices available tothe system/ irrespective of storage devicesavailable to the system (Claims 1 & 16)

storing each column without taking into accountthe arrangement of the storage devices

data page/data pages (Claims 1 & 16)

fixed unit(s) of physical storage

creating for each column . . . at least oneassociated data page for storing data valuesfor the column (Claim 1)

[AGREED] [no construction necessary]

data values for each particular column ... areall stored together/ stores together all of thedata values for a particular column (Claims 1 & 16)

[no construction necessary]

linking together (Claim 1)

connecting a series of pages one after another

linking together all of said at least one datapage (Claim 1)

[no construction necessary]

page chain (Claims 1 & 16)

a sequence of pages connected by a reference ineach preceding page to each successive page

[page chain] for the column(Claim 1)

[AGREED] a page chain containing data valuesfor a single column and no other column

stored contiguously (Claim 2)

[AGREED] stored next to each other

query (Claim 3)

[AGREED] a statement that provides criteria forselecting particular data from tables in a databasemanagement system

large block input/output transfer (Claims 3 & 4)

transferring at one time data pages having datavalues from many rows of data records

36

logical view (Claim 7)

[AGREED] a user point-of-view, as opposed tothe physical structure used by a computer

includes a selective one of [list of items] (Claim 11)

[no construction necessary]

page header (Claim 14)

supplemental data at the beginning of a data page

means for creating a vertical partition foreach and every column of the database table,each vertical partition having data values foronly a single column of the database table(Claim 16)

[Indefinite]

means for transferring each vertical partitionto and from the storage device, so that atleast some data values for a particularcolumn are stored together at a contiguouslocation on the storage device (Claim 16)

[Indefinite]

wherein said means for creating a verticalpartition for each column includes: forming a vertical page chain for eachcolumn, said vertical page chain storing onlythose data value of the records whichcorrespond to the column for the page chain.(Claim 16)

[Indefinite]

37