LTE (and others), Thank you for your analysis. The way I understand it, LTE, you believe that by changing the patent claims, IDCC covered two mutually exclusive interpretations and therefore could not win on both.
I have finally had time to go through both the CAFC opinions (one on 613, the other on 800). My conclusion is that I am more confused now than I was, and certainly don't come to the conclusion that you reached. (Disclaimer: I am NOT an attorney or an IT professional).
In the 613 appeal, the CAFC ruled on two claim constructions:
1. “code”. ITC construction rejected by the CAFC was “a spreading code or a portion of a spreading code” where code is “a sequence of chips”. CAFC states “The record reflects that the plain meaning of “code” to one of skill in the cellphone communications art is a sequence of bits (if the ones and zeros are transmitted at the data rate) or chips (if the ones and zeros are transmitted at the faster chip rate).”
2. “increased power level”. ITC construction rejected by the CAFC was “the power level of a transmission is higher than that of a previous transmission” plus “the power level of a code signal increases during transmission”. CAFC construction (not stated explicitly but implied): “clearly covers both continuous and stepped power increases”.
In the 800 appeal, IDCC challenged the ITC’s claim constructions of two different terms:
1. “successively sends [or sent] transmissions.” ITC construction accepted by the CAFC is “transmits to the base station, one after the other, codes that are shorter than a regular length code,”
2. “power control bit.” ITC construction accepted by the CAFC is “single-bit power control information”
Since different terms were ruled on in the two CAFC decision, where does preclusion enter the picture? And what makes the claims mutually exclusive interpretations?
I would appreciate enlightenment from any poster, regardless of whether they are attorneys or not.
LA
