The ALJ committed clear error in his claim construction order (Order No. 31) because he
incorrectly construed the “entire oscillator” element of claims 6 and 13 based on intrinsic
evidence. Thus, the ALJ’s construction of “entire oscillator” should be reversed. Under the
correct construction of “entire oscillator,” overwhelming evidence demonstrates that the Accused
Products infringe. Thus, if the Commission reverses the ALJ’s claim construction, the
Commission may find infringement without need to remand the issue to the ALJ for a
determination of infringement under the correct construction.
Claim interpretation is a legal issue that lies exclusively within the province of the Court.
Markman v. Westview Instruments, Inc., 517 U.S. 370, 372 (1996). To determine the meaning of
claim terms, the Court must examine the intrinsic evidence: the claims, specification and file
history. Markman v. Westview Instruments, Inc., 52 F.3d 967, 979 (Fed. Cir. 1995), aff’d, 517

While claim limitations must be construed in light of the specification and prosecution
history, it is improper to import limitations into the claims where such limitations are not present
in the language of the claim itself. Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1323. A difference exists between
construing a term appearing in a claim versus adding a limitation that does not appear in the
claim in the first instance. The former is permissible, the latter is forbidden.