InvestorsHub Logo
Followers 3
Posts 276
Boards Moderated 0
Alias Born 07/19/2012

Re: None

Tuesday, 11/22/2016 6:16:04 PM

Tuesday, November 22, 2016 6:16:04 PM

Post# of 23258
It's about Claim Construction

from the appeal brief

...Indeed, several courts (as well as Judge Grewal himself) have previously construed the entire oscillator term, and none of them found the sweeping disclaimer advocated by Judge Grewal in his R&R. This record begs the obvious question – how can there be “clear and unmistakable” disavowal of the broad scope advocated by the district court if several, experienced patent judges have reviewed the same record and reached a different conclusion? The answer is readily apparent – no clear and unmistakable disavowal exists in the patent prosecution, and Judge Grewal’s finding of clear and unmistakable disclaimer is erroneous. Further, any disavowal is more readily explained as something narrower than the construction provided by the district court. And when the scope of the disclaimer is not clear, if a more narrow disavowal can be found, Federal Circuit precedent requires that the more narrow disavowal be applied.
Avid Tech., 2016 U.S. App. LEXIS 1439, at *10-11.
Volume:
Day Range:
Bid:
Ask:
Last Trade Time:
Total Trades:
  • 1D
  • 1M
  • 3M
  • 6M
  • 1Y
  • 5Y
Recent CPMV News