1. Week 03 - Answers Interferences: Concept?
When credibility is at issue.
Examples and Citation to Statute/Regulation?
- Inequitable Conduct
Rule 56, 37 CFR 1.56
- Derivation
35 USC102 f
Sci.Ev rjm
Week 2

2. Claim Construction Order
Ampex v. Mitsubishi
Claim Construction Order
Page 2: Why do both sides agree that “a” Clock Signal means ONE – LEADER: RJM…
*Truth: Patent & Prosecution History
o Specification only discusses one single clock
o Prior art Inaba Patent distinguished on basis of single clock
* Reality/Strategy:
o No advantage to either side from arguing differently
o Mitsubishi NOT practicing Inaba
o Mitsubishi N/I argument BOOTSTRAPS single clock to SINGLE rate.
Ampex is just lucky (?) that Examiner didn’t say: OK, amend to say SINGLE explicitly.
Sci.Ev rjm
Week 2

3. Claim Construction Order
Ampex v. Mitsubishi
Claim Construction Order
Page 3: Mitsubishi: The READ address must NOT include a Divide-By-Two Circuit. Why didn’t Lechner testify? – LEADER: RJM
* Truth/Reality
TECHNOLOGY: He knows Luke is right
STRATEGY: He disagrees with the attorneys that contradicting Luke is helpful
MISTAKE:
+ Lechner had messed up already on other points so the attorneys didn’t want to keep him on the stand any more
+ The attorneys messed up and forgot to ask him
[Ann Marie makes similar points in different ways.
Regarding her question b: Is the only consideration ETHICS? What about a little attorney humility about the art?]
Sci.Ev rjm
Week 2

4. Claim Construction Order
Ampex v. Mitsubishi
Claim Construction Order
Page 3: Divide by Two Observation by Court
LEADER: RJM
Shows PO Ampex where it needs to do some repair work
Gives AI Mitsubishi a suggestion of where to attack, if PO doesn’t take the hint
Jason’s points address this more politely.
Sci.Ev rjm
Week 2

5. Claim Construction Order
Ampex v. Mitsubishi
Claim Construction Order
Page 5: The 4th claim element [control signal for time difference] Why didn’t Lechner testify? – LEADER: RJM
What is the procedural posture of the case?
Henry’s questions:
* Should McKelvie have accepted the possibility of larger memory even though they were "prohibitively expensive" at the time?
Did he NOT? Did he? If a larger memory is possible, who and how does that help with the claim interpretation?
* Should the specification have mentioned that the read-write method would become more practical as memory became less expensive?
? Why do you include what you do in a specification? What were the objects of this invention? See 2: This is a good question for we who may do prosecution. What do you think of arguments of the form “it doesn’t say X and it could have,” when the issue is claim interpretation?
Summary judgment motion by Mitsubishi. Therefore resolve doubts against them? But it’s also a Markman hearing. Therefore?
Sci.Ev rjm
Week 2