Interesting !!Yungwirth was plaintiff attorney in Phillips federal appeal case
in response to
by
Message: earnings per yahoo
It appears Yungwirth is extremely familiar with Phillips vs AWH case law , as you
appreciate in followings he represented as one of plaintiff attorney for Phillips !
You remember folowing discussion in Markman transcript :
Jameson , and, Your Honor, I
know you are well versed in claim construction --
THE COURT: Not so much. Phillips was not my best
moment.
MR. JAMESON: Actually, Your Honor, it was a good
moment 'cause it helped us a lot. And what Phillips actually
told us was, we got to start with the claims. And then we need
to look at the claims against the specification. And we might
then go to the prosecution history if it's in evidence, but the
prosecution history, we got to be real careful about that,
because it can be ambiguous at times; and so we don't hang our
hat on the prosecution history unless there is a disclaimer
that is clear, unmistakable, unambiguous, and we got all the
cases cited in the briefing.
And here's what the intrinsic record teaches us. The
patent examiner and the applicants reached an agreement that a
narrowing amendment would result in a patentable invention that
overcomes Schroder and the Microsoft Dictionary definition.
And the examiner laid out exactly what that narrowing amendment
was. And nowhere in that narrowing amendment that the patent
examiner laid out is there anything about that is the main
memory of the system or without another memory system such as
RAM. The examiner made crystal clear that if you amend the
claims, that the flash memory is the sole memory of the
received processed, past tense. Once we've gone through all
the processing, it's the sole memory for storage of the
received processed electrical signals, you've got a patentable
invention.
know you are well versed in claim construction --
THE COURT: Not so much. Phillips was not my best
moment.
MR. JAMESON: Actually, Your Honor, it was a good
moment 'cause it helped us a lot. And what Phillips actually
told us was, we got to start with the claims. And then we need
to look at the claims against the specification. And we might
then go to the prosecution history if it's in evidence, but the
prosecution history, we got to be real careful about that,
because it can be ambiguous at times; and so we don't hang our
hat on the prosecution history unless there is a disclaimer
that is clear, unmistakable, unambiguous, and we got all the
cases cited in the briefing.
And here's what the intrinsic record teaches us. The
patent examiner and the applicants reached an agreement that a
narrowing amendment would result in a patentable invention that
overcomes Schroder and the Microsoft Dictionary definition.
And the examiner laid out exactly what that narrowing amendment
was. And nowhere in that narrowing amendment that the patent
examiner laid out is there anything about that is the main
memory of the system or without another memory system such as
RAM. The examiner made crystal clear that if you amend the
claims, that the flash memory is the sole memory of the
received processed, past tense. Once we've gone through all
the processing, it's the sole memory for storage of the
received processed electrical signals, you've got a patentable
invention.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
U.S. District Court
District of Colorado (Denver)
CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 1:97-cv-00212-MSK-CBS
|
Cause: 35:271 Patent Infringement |
|
|
Plaintiff |
||
|
Edward H. Phillips |
represented by |
Alexander Garlin |
|
|
||
|
Defendant |
||
|
AWH Corporation |
18 Recommendations
Loading...
Loading...
New Message
Please
login
to post a reply