Micron admits claim 1 got more broad definition by claim construction than usual
in response to
by
Message: I wonder if our opponents are relying...
C.F.R. § 42.104(b)(3): Claim Construction
Claim 1 must be given its “broadest reasonable construction in light of the specification.” 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b). Petitioners refer to this standard as “BRI.”2
To determine the meaning of Claim 1, it is appropriate and necessary to consider the ’108 patent as well as the specification and prosecution history of its parent—U.S. Patent No. 5,787,445 (the “’445 patent”) (Ex. 1008)—to which the ’108 patent is a continuation-in-part.3 See, e.g., Omega Eng’g, Inc., v. Raytek
The district court in e.Digital Corp. v. Other World Computing, Inc., No. 3:13-cv-02915 (S.D. Cal.); and e.Digital Corp. v. Mushkin, Inc., No. 3:13-cv-02914 (S.D. Cal.) rendered a claim construction decision broader than the BRI advocated in this petition. (Ex. 1016.) While Petitioners do not agree with its merits, they attach it to this petition in the interest of full disclosure.
Claim 1 must be given its “broadest reasonable construction in light of the specification.” 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b). Petitioners refer to this standard as “BRI.”2
To determine the meaning of Claim 1, it is appropriate and necessary to consider the ’108 patent as well as the specification and prosecution history of its parent—U.S. Patent No. 5,787,445 (the “’445 patent”) (Ex. 1008)—to which the ’108 patent is a continuation-in-part.3 See, e.g., Omega Eng’g, Inc., v. Raytek
The district court in e.Digital Corp. v. Other World Computing, Inc., No. 3:13-cv-02915 (S.D. Cal.); and e.Digital Corp. v. Mushkin, Inc., No. 3:13-cv-02914 (S.D. Cal.) rendered a claim construction decision broader than the BRI advocated in this petition. (Ex. 1016.) While Petitioners do not agree with its merits, they attach it to this petition in the interest of full disclosure.
18 Recommendations
Loading...
Loading...
New Message
Please
login
to post a reply