Turning to the specification, we similarly see no “clear intent to limit the claim
scope” to storage in files. Abbott Labs. v. Sandoz, Inc., 566 F.3d 1282, 1288 (Fed. Cir.
2009). The sample algorithms do not say the storage means is restricted to “files.” ’449
Patent col.8 ll.53-62; see Innova/Pure Water, 381 F.3d at 1121-22. Instead, they use
the more generic term “storage space,” creating one for the mapped content and
another for the metacode map.
As for the prosecution history, we do not read it as limiting storage to files.
During prosecution, i4i distinguished its invention from U.S. Patent No. 5,280,574
(“Mizuta”) prior art in part because Mizuta stored “all document information . . . in one
file . . . the document file.” But this is not all i4i said. i4i then explained that Mizuta
statements make clear that what distinguished the Mizuta prior art was not the storage
type (file or no file), but rather the separation of a document’s content and structure.
The statements Microsoft now plucks from the prosecution history do not “clear[ly] and
unmistakabl[y] disavow” storage means that are not files. Computer Docking Station
Corp. v. Dell, Inc., 519 F.3d 1366, 1374 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (citing Purdue Pharma L.P. v.
Endo Pharms., Inc., 438 F.3d 1123, 1136 (Fed. Cir. 2006)).
Because the claims themselves do not use the word “file” and the specification
discloses embodiments where the storage format is not a file, we conclude that “distinct”
does not require storage in separate files. Liebel-Flarsheim Co. v. Medrad, Inc., 358
F.3d 898, 907-08 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (declining to limit the invention’s scope to the
disclosed embodiments when the specification did “not expressly or by clear implication