Task: Wrong Candidate Generation
Input (English): because there is an intact disk that can be replaced on the corneal stro-ma. On the other hand, when an excimer laser is used, -tissue is vaporized and no longer exists and, as a result, that tissue cannot be replaced on the corneal stroma to achieve reversibility. 54. Where more than one claim construction is possible, the Court should not choose a construction that is broad enough to encompass prior art. ACS Hosp. Sys., Inc. v. Montefiore Hosp., 732 F.2d 1572, 1577 (Fed.Cir.1984). If the Court were to construe the third element of Claim 1 to cover the reshaping of the cornea with an excimer laser, then the patent would be invalidated by the wealth of prior art LASIK procedures. See also SciMed Life Sys., Inc. v. Advanced Cardiovascular Sys., Inc., 242 F.3d 1337, 1343 (Fed.Cir.2001)(<HOLDING>) 55. The Court also finds that the pat-entee’s 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that the phrase prior conviction under this section should be read broadly to include any prior conviction under the kansas uniform controlled substances act ksa 654101 et seq or other analogous municipal or foreign provisions (B) holding that a prior conviction is not a predicate offense under the sentencing guidelines if the statute that provides the basis for the prior conviction sweeps more broadly than the generic crime described in the guidelines (C) holding that the fact that the written description stated a particular feature that offered advantages over the prior art supported the conclusion that the claims cannot be read so broadly as to encompass the distinguished prior art (D) holding that in determining whether a prior conviction is a violent felony a court generally must look only to the fact of conviction and the statutory definition of the prior offense (E) holding that for sentencing purposes the government does not need to allege a defendants prior conviction or prove the fact of a prior conviction where that fact is not an element of the present crime
Output (English): holding that for sentencing purposes the government does not need to allege a defendants prior conviction or prove the fact of a prior conviction where that fact is not an element of the present crime