Interference No. 104,190
blade in flexure and the Parins device did not. This would
render the examiner’s statement of a patentable distinction a
nullity.
Our clear understanding of the examiner’s reason for
allowance is that this language was introduced into the claim
to avoid the Rydell prior art. We must conclude that any
claim construction broader than the one proffered by the
senior party was disclaimed during prosecution. Vitronics at
1582, 39 USPQ2d at 1576. The prior art Rydell patent is a
strong clue as to what the scope of the count covers. Id.
Up against the strong intrinsic evidence of file
wrapper history, Parins relies on the extrinsic evidence of
testimony as to the proper scope of the count. As the case
law cited above suggests, extrinsic evidence is only evaluated
when intrinsic evidence is insufficient to glean a clear
14
Page: Previous 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007