Ex Parte 5694604 et al - Page 84


                Appeal 2007-2127                                                                                  
                Reexamination Control No. 90/006,621                                                              
                decisis arising out of the Federal Circuit's decision in Reiffin v.Microsoft.                     
                Patent Owner relies mostly on the following statement from that case:                             
                              The two patents in suit have the same specification, and differ                     
                       as to their claims; the '603 patent claims a memory product storing                        
                       multithreaded software, and the '604 patent claims a method of                             
                       multithreaded operation and a multithreaded system.  Claim 12 of                           
                       the '603 patent is representative.  [Quoting claim 12 to a disk                            
                       encoded with a plurality of concurrently executable threads of                             
                       instructions constituting a multithreaded computer program.]                               
                       [Emphasis added.]                                                                          
                214 F.3d at 1344, 54 USPQ2d at 1916.  Patent Owner argues (Br. 22-23):                            
                              It is well settled that no amount of extrinsic evidence can                         
                       overcome the intrinsic evidence of the definitions set forth in a                          
                       specification.  The inventor is the lexicographer, not the Patent Office.                  
                       The Federal Circuit had before it and considered the specifications of                     
                       Patent Owner's 1982 application and his '603 and '604 patents.  The                        
                       specifications considered by the Federal Circuit included definitions                      
                       erroneously rejected by the Examiner.  The Federal Circuit described                       
                       the invention using Patent Owner's terms, and set forth as                                 
                       "representative" of the invention a patent claim reciting Patent                           
                       Owner's defined terms.                                                                     
                       Patent Owner's argument that "[t]he Federal Circuit had it right in                        
                Reiffin v. Microsoft Corp. when it correctly ruled that 'the district court erred                 
                in holding the '603 and '604 claims invalid for failure to comply with the                        
                written description requirement' of 35 U.S.C. § 112, ¶ 1" (Br. 4) implies that                    
                the Federal Circuit expressly found that the '603 and '604 patents met the                        
                written description requirement.  Patent Owner's argument that "[t]he                             
                Federal Circuit had before it and considered the specifications of Patent                         
                Owner's 1982 application and his '603 and '604 patents" (Br. 22-23), and that                     
                by its stating that the two patents have the same specification, its describing                   

                                                       84                                                         

Page:  Previous  77  78  79  80  81  82  83  84  85  86  87  88  89  90  91  Next

Last modified: September 9, 2013