Ex Parte 5694604 et al - Page 86


                Appeal 2007-2127                                                                                  
                Reexamination Control No. 90/006,621                                                              
                Id. at 1346, 54 USPQ2d at 1917.  Thus, the Federal Circuit did not decide                         
                that the '603 and '604 patents satisfy the written description requirement for                    
                "multithreading," as implied by Patent Owner, but only held that the district                     
                court erred in deciding that there was no written description in those patents                    
                based on the 1982 application, when the 1982 application was not relied on.                       
                The fact that the Federal Circuit used the term "multithreading" does not                         
                mean that it had decided that there was written description for the term.  The                    
                doctrine of "stare decisis" is totally inapplicable in this situation.                            
                       Patent Owner's second point (apparently) is that the definition of                         
                "multithreading" in the 1990 application is intrinsic evidence of support in                      
                the 1990 application, which cannot be overcome with extrinsic evidence.                           
                Since the issue is priority, we assume Patent Owner is not talking about                          
                written description in the 1994 application.                                                      
                       There are several responses to this argument.  First, the definitions of                   
                "threads" and "multithreading" in the '603 patent are not part of the original                    
                1990 disclosure, but were added by amendment after the filing date; they are                      
                not intrinsic evidence in the original specification.  See Phillips v. AWH,                       
                415 F.3d at 1313, 75 USPQ2d at 1326 ("the ordinary and customary                                  
                meaning of a claim term is the meaning that the term would have to a person                       
                of ordinary skill in the art in question at the time of the invention, i.e., as of                
                the effective filing date of the patent application").  Second, Patent Owner                      
                admitted during prosecution of the 1990 application that the terms "threads"                      
                and "multithreading" have their ordinary meaning in the art, and referred to                      
                extrinsic sources of dictionaries and treatises, thus expressly bringing                          
                extrinsic evidence of the meanings within the realm of prosecution history                        
                intrinsic evidence.  Third, by stating that terms have their ordinary meaning                     

                                                       86                                                         

Page:  Previous  79  80  81  82  83  84  85  86  87  88  89  90  91  92  93  Next

Last modified: September 9, 2013