figuring out how the judge threw away a ruling that was handed to him:
By construing the
term in that manner, the administrative law judge limited the patents to embodiments featuring continuous
increases in power throughout the ramp-up period. Doing
so had the effect of excluding systems, such as Nokia’s
system, that employ discrete power increases during the
ramp-up process, in which the power is increased between
transmissions but not during the course of each transmission.
.
.
.
By choosing not
to disclose the latter method in the patents, they argue,
InterDigital must be deemed to have excluded stepped
power increases from the scope of its invention. That
argument, however, depends on the conclusion that the
claims do not, by their plain language, include both intermittent and continuous increases in power. Because
we conclude that the claim language is broad enough to
include both embodiments, the inventors’ failure to include a reference to the alternative embodiment in the
specification does not justify excluding that embodiment
from the coverage of the claims. Consequently, we hold
that the administrative law judge should have construed
“increased power level” to include both intermittent and
continuous increases in power.
Does the ruling not say "Nokia’s
system, that employ discrete power increases during the
ramp-up process"
and the patent covers that? what am I missing here. I realize the latest ITC ruling is for a different patent than the remand, but i understand it is practically same with better wording. what am i missing here?!
| 