SUPPLEMENTAL AUTHORITY ?

In Erbe, the Federal Circuit sustained the district court’s interpretation of the claim term “low flow rate” based on statements in the prosecution history made by the inventors to distinguish the claims over prior art, in spite of the fact that the district court’s construction may have rendered a dependent claim “mere surplusage.”

As I read that, in question are statements made during the prosecution history of 774 between the inventor and the patent examiner.

I guess we would have to understand what district court’s interpretation of the claim term “low flow rate” is and how that compares to the inventors statements during the prosecution history

If I remember, e.Digital / Norris has some sort of an exhibit to be identified at the hearing.

My guess was, it might be signed statement by the plans examiner, where jokingly, I noted maybe Norris used the voice recorder to record the events.

doni