Appeal 2007-2127
Reexamination Control No. 90/006,621
states the meaning that the claim terms are intended to have, the claims are
examined with that meaning, in order to achieve a complete exploration of
the applicant's invention and its relation to the prior art." In re Zletz,
893 F.2d 319, 321, 13 USPQ2d 1320, 1322 (Fed. Cir. 1989). Claims in a
reexamination proceeding are given their broadest reasonable interpretation
consistent with the specification. See In re Yamamoto, 740 F.2d 1569, 1571,
222 USPQ 934, 936 (Fed. Cir. 1984). The claims are examined with the
meanings asserted by Patent Owner during prosecution of the '603 patent
and in the disclosure of the '604 patent. Patent Owner, having repeatedly
stated that the terms "threads" and "multithreading" have their ordinary and
customary meanings in the art, may not now contradict the record that he
created. See Southwall Technologies, Inc. v. Cardinal IG Co.,
54 F.3d 1570, 1578, 34 USPQ2d 1673, 1678 (Fed. Cir. 1995) ("A patentee
may not proffer an interpretation for the purposes of litigation that would
alter the indisputable public record consisting of the claims, the specification
and the prosecution history, and treat the claims as a 'nose of wax .'").
2. Background explanation of "multithreading"
"Multithreading" is an advanced operating system feature and some
background explanation will be helpful in understanding the issues on
appeal. The references cited were all published before the filing date of the
1994 application (when "multithreading" first appeared in an application as
filed) and many of the books were cited by Patent Owner during prosecution
of the '603 patent (e.g., Findings 6, 7, and 13)
27
Page: Previous 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013