“As the CAFC explained, ‘nothing in the claims necessitates that ‘response’ means more than merely a communication sent after the terminal sends content status.’” At issue, Claim 1, treated as representative, recites a processor configured to receive content status information from a remote terminal and server status information regarding available content. VideoLabs then argued that the claimed “response to the content status” must be triggered specifically by the terminal’s transmission of content status information. The court found that this structure weighed against reading “content status” as necessarily the trigger for the response. The court stated, “that the response occurs ‘after’ the content status provided by the terminal is received does not mean that the content status necessarily ‘triggers’ the response.”