In the Staff’s view, it appeared
that the anticipated expert
testimony regarding infringement
under the Staff’s and Respondents’ proposed construc
tions would have left a material issue of
fact in dispute that would have precluded Re
spondents from seeking summary determination of
noninfringement. However, as
Dr. Oklobdzija did not address
the Staff’s or Respondents’
proposed constructions of the “enti
re oscillator” limitations, the Sta
ff is of the view that cause
exists for Respondents to proceed with th
eir motions for summary determination.