hey loop
thx, you are probably right and i am reading too much into it...
but i do take a little comfort in the HTC/ipcom decision when the court recited the following
"Words of a claim “are generally given their ordinary and customary meaning.” Vitronics Corp. v. Concep- tronic, Inc., 90 F.3d 1576, 1582 (Fed. Cir. 1996). The plain language of claims 1 and 18 indicates that the network, not the mobile station, performs the enumerated functions.
In addition to examining the claim language, the dis- trict court should have referred to the specification to understand the claims. Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1315. The specification is in parity with the claim language, confirm- ing that the network, rather than the base station, per- forms the enumerated functions.
.
.
.
The district court placed too much weight on the ap- plicants’ use of the word “process” when the claim lan- guage and the specification indicated that the applicants did not claim a process."
the issue they were discussing about the patent in question was if it was the handset or the network that was doing the handover process.
how does this parralel or mirror the idcc patent? how about replacing the above with code/signal and limiting it to spreading code?
MO (trying to find ways to convince myself further of our strength in the cafc)
bim
| 