X hits on this document

PDF document

Attorneys for Microsoft Corporation - page 34 / 74

165 views

0 shares

0 downloads

0 comments

34 / 74

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

“lacked

any

notion

of

a

metacode

map”

or

“distinct

storage

means.”

In

evaluating

whether

a

patentee

has

disavowed

claim

scope,

context

matters.

Together,

these

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

2009-1504

9

Document info
Document views165
Page views165
Page last viewedSat Dec 03 18:19:11 UTC 2016
Pages74
Paragraphs2162
Words19614

Comments