CHEUNG et al vs. RITZDORF et al - Page 14




                Interference No. 105,113                                                                                                      

                         court interprets words in a claim as one of skill in the art at the time of the                                      
                         invention would understand them. . . .  Therefore the testimony of one skilled in                                    
                         the art about the meaning of claim terms at the time of the invention will almost                                    
                         always qualify as relevant evidence."                                                                                
                Motion 2, at 17.  Cheung's reliance on this Eastman passage overlooks the fact that it follows the                            
                court's conclusion that the district court properly considered such testimony after concluding that                           
                the meaning of the disputed claim could not be ascertained from the intrinsic evidence.  114 F.3d                             
                at 1553-55, 42 USPQ2d at 1741-42.  Where, as here, the intrinsic evidence is sufficient to                                    
                establish the meanings of the disputed terms, consideration of such extrinsic evidence is not                                 
                permitted, as explained in Eastman:                                                                                           
                         If, of course, the meaning of the claims is clear from their language in view of the                                 
                         context provided by the specification and the prosecution history, the trial court                                   
                         should limit its consideration of extrinsic evidence.  See Vitronics Corp. v.                                        
                         Conceptronic, Inc., 90 F.3d 1576, 1583, 39 USPQ2d 1573, 1577 (Fed. Cir.1996).                                        
                         Extrinsic evidence--whether providing context for the claims or explaining claim                                     
                         meaning to one of skill in the art--cannot contradict claim language.  Id.                                           
                Eastman, 114 F.3d at 1555, 42 USPQ2d at 1742.                                                                                 
                         In any event, assuming for the sake of argument that the foregoing  intrinsic evidence                               
                fails to settle the interpretation question, Dr. Geffken's testimony (CX 2009) fails to persuade us                           
                that the terms "thermal anneal chamber" and "annealing chamber" in Ritzdorf's claims should be                                
                limited to sealed enclosures having tops, bottoms, and surrounding sides.  Moreover, we will                                  
                assume, without deciding, that Dr. Geffken is qualified to express opinions mentioned in his                                  
                declaration. The preliminary motion (at 5-6, ¶¶ 7, 9) relies on the following parts of paragraphs                             
                11 and 16 of Dr. Geffken's testimony, of which the sentences in paragraph 11 are identified by                                
                letters for purposes of discussion:                                                                                           
                                                                   - 14 -                                                                     





Page:  Previous  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  18  19  20  21  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007