InterDigital Inc (IDCC)

[infinite_q]

olddog, again you have provided some very juicy material for review. From the article you referenced:

The Federal Circuit has held that the inventor’s intent is the crucial factor in determining whether or not a claim preamble should be given a limiting effect during claim construction. In keeping with the general principles of claim construction, this intent should be determined through a review of the patent record as a whole. As the court stated in Corning Glass Works v. Sumitomo Elec. U.S.A., Inc., whether a preamble recitation is a limitation or just a statement of purpose “can be resolved only on review of the entirety of the patent to gain an understanding of what the inventors actually invented and intended to encompass by the claim.”24 Thus, to determine the inventor’s intent, a court may review the claims, specification, drawings, and prosecution history.

If you think about IDCC's intent, do you think they intended clam 1 to be limited to the base station? Is there any evidence that the patent examiner intended for claim 1 to be limited to a base station? Did IDCC surrender any scope of coverage during the prosecution of the patent that would exclude this patent from covering the handset? Of course not!

I think it is clear to any objective bystander that IDCC and the USPTO expected this patent to cover both the base station and the handset, and there was no reason for claim 1 in particlular to be limited to the base station. So why would the courts review the patent and prosecution history and come to the just conclusion that the preamble was intended to limit the scope of the patent in any way?

I'm waiting for someone to explain that to me