architecture, (layout, structure, or presentation formation) of a document without even having access to the actual content of the document. This is achieved by extracting the metacodes from an existing document and creating a map of the location of the metacodes in the document and then storing the map and the content of the document separately.
The reason for the examiner’s rejection helps us understand i4i’s response. In context,
i4i’s response is best read as clarifying why the invention’s “storage means” are more
than just “distinct addresses.” i4i’s subsequent discussion of the benefits of separate
storage is not sufficiently “clear and unmistakable” to disavow embodiments lacking
independent manipulation. Purdue Pharma, 438 F.3d at 1136.
In light of the specification’s permissive language, the prosecution history, and
the claim language, we conclude that “independent manipulation” is a benefit of
separate storage, but not itself a limitation.
Microsoft also appeals two issues regarding the validity of i4i’s patent. The first
is whether the invention would have been obvious to one of skill in the art. The second
is whether Microsoft is entitled to JMOL or a new trial on validity, due to anticipation by
a software program called S4.
At trial, Microsoft argued that the ’449 patent was invalid based on several pieces
of prior art. As relevant here, Microsoft argued that i4i’s invention would have been
obvious in light of U.S. Patent No. 5,587,902 (“Kugimiya”), when combined with either
alternative, Microsoft argued that i4i’s invention was anticipated under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(b) by the sale of a software program, SEMI-S4 (“S4”), by i4i before the critical