specification teaches that “separate manipulation” describes the user’s ability to work on
metacode map and content synchronized. For example, Figure 9 teaches that updates
to the content may require the invention to make corresponding changes to the
metacode map. ’449 Patent col.14 l.49-col.15 l.5.
Microsoft is correct that the specification refers to working on “solely” the
document’s structure (metacode map):
The present invention provides the ability to work solely on metacodes. The process allows changes to be made to the structure of a document without requiring the content. A metacode map could be edited directly
based solely on an existing map without requiring the content.
Id. at col.7 ll.6-11 (emphases added). Read as a whole, however, these statements are
best understood as describing the advantages of separate storage, the real claim
language, “could be edited,” “can be created,” and “ability to work,” does not clearly
disclaim systems lacking these benefits.
An examination of the prosecution history similarly reveals no statements that
examiner rejected several claims as obvious, explaining that “[s]torage is always
distinct, even if at distinct addresses.” In response, i4i stated:
[T]he architecture of a document can be treated as a separate entity from the content of the document. Thus, the architecture of the document can be treated as an entity having distinct storage from the content of the document. This separation allows distinct processes to operate on the content and the architecture, with or without knowledge of the other. In other words, using the present invention, one could change the