Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca13-16-01306/USCOURTS-ca13-16-01306-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Futurewei Technologies, Inc.
Appellee
Huawei Device Co., Ltd.
Appellee
Huawei Device USA Inc.
Appellee
Huawei Technologies Co., Ltd.
Appellee
Huawei Technologies USA Inc.
Appellee
LG Electronics U.S.A., Inc.
Appellee
LG Electronics, Inc.
Appellee
Nintendo Co., Ltd
Appellee
Nintendo of America, Inc.
Appellee
Patriot Scientific Corporation
Appellant
Phoenix Digital Solutions LLC
Appellant
Samsung Electronic Co., Ltd
Appellee
Samsung Electronics America, Inc.
Appellee
Technology Properties Limited LLC
Appellant
ZTE Corporation
Appellee
ZTE USA, Inc.
Appellee

Document Text:

United States Court of Appeals 

for the Federal Circuit ______________________ 

TECHNOLOGY PROPERTIES LIMITED LLC, 

PHOENIX DIGITAL SOLUTIONS LLC, PATRIOT 

SCIENTIFIC CORPORATION,

Plaintiffs-Appellants

v.

HUAWEI TECHNOLOGIES CO., LTD., FUTUREWEI

TECHNOLOGIES, INC., HUAWEI DEVICE CO., 

LTD., HUAWEI DEVICE USA INC., HUAWEI 

TECHNOLOGIES USA INC., ZTE CORPORATION, 

ZTE USA, INC., SAMSUNG ELECTRONIC CO., LTD, 

SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS AMERICA, INC., LG 

ELECTRONICS, INC., LG ELECTRONICS U.S.A., 

INC., NINTENDO CO., LTD, NINTENDO OF 

AMERICA, INC.,

Defendants-Appellees

______________________ 

2016-1306, 2016-1307, 2016-1309, 2016-1310, 2016-1311

______________________ 

Appeals from the United States District Court for the 

Northern District of California in Nos. 3:12-cv-03865-VC, 

3:12-cv-03876-VC, 3:12-cv-03877-VC, 3:12-cv-03880-VC, 

3:12-cv-03881-VC, Judge Vince Chhabria.

______________________ 

Decided: March 3, 2017 

______________________ 

Case: 16-1306 Document: 99-2 Page: 1 Filed: 03/03/2017
2 TECH. PROPS. LTD. v. HUAWEI TECHS. CO., LTD. 

THOMAS CECIL, Nelson Bumgardner PC, Fort Worth, 

TX, argued for all plaintiffs-appellants. Plaintiffappellant Phoenix Digital Solutions LLC also represented 

by BARRY JAMES BUMGARDNER, BRENT N. BUMGARDNER, 

EDWARD R. NELSON, III; TRAVIS CAMPBELL, ROBERT 

GREENSPOON, Flachsbart & Greenspoon, LLC, Chicago, 

IL.

BARRY JAMES BUMGARDNER, Nelson Bumgardner PC, 

Fort Worth, TX, for plaintiff-appellant Technology Propertied Limited, LLC. Also represented by WILLIAM L.

BRETSCHNEIDER, Silicon Valley Law Group, San Jose, CA.

CHARLES THOMAS HOGE, Kirby Noonan Lance & Hoge 

LLP, San Diego, CA, for plaintiff-appellant Patriotic 

Scientific Corporation. 

MARK D. FOWLER, DLA Piper US LLP, East Palo Alto, 

CA, argued for all defendants-appellees. Defendantsappellees Samsung Electronic Co., Ltd., Samsung Electronics America, Inc. also represented by ERIK RYAN 

FUEHRER, AARON WAINSCOAT; JAMES MARTIN HEINTZ, 

Reston, VA; STANLEY JOSEPH PANIKOWSKI, III, ROBERT 

CHEN WILLIAMS, San Diego, CA.

TIMOTHY C. BICKHAM, Steptoe & Johnson, LLP, Washington, DC, for defendants-appellees Huawei Technologies 

Co., Ltd., Futurewei Technologies, Inc., Huawei Device 

Co., Ltd., Huawei Device USA Inc., Huawei Technologies 

USA Inc.

CHARLES M. MCMAHON, McDermott, Will & Emery 

LLP, Chicago, IL, for defendants-appellees ZTE Corporation, ZTE USA, Inc. Also represented by HERSH H.

MEHTA. 

CHRISTIAN A. CHU, Fish & Richardson, PC, Washington, DC, for defendants-appellees LG Electronics, Inc., LG 

Case: 16-1306 Document: 99-2 Page: 2 Filed: 03/03/2017
TECH. PROPS. LTD. v. HUAWEI TECHS. CO., LTD. 3

Electronics U.S.A., Inc. Also represented by SCOTT 

ANDREW ELENGOLD. 

STEPHEN R. SMITH, Cooley LLP, Washington, DC, for 

defendants-appellees Nintendo Co., Ltd., Nintendo of 

America, Inc. Also represented by MATTHEW J. BRIGHAM, 

Palo Alto, CA.

______________________ 

Before MOORE, WALLACH, and CHEN, Circuit Judges.

MOORE, Circuit Judge. 

The present appeals arise from five cases in the 

Northern District of California. Technology Properties 

Limited LLC, Phoenix Digital Solutions LLC, and Patriot 

Scientific Corp. (collectively “Technology Properties”) 

asserted U.S. Patent No. 5,809,336 (the “’336 patent”) 

against Huawei Technologies Co., Ltd., Futurewei Technologies, Inc., Huawei Device Co., Ltd., Huawei Device 

USA Inc., Huawei Technologies USA Inc., ZTE Corp., ZTE 

USA, Inc., Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd., Samsung 

Electronics America, Inc., LG Electronics, Inc., LG Electronics U.S.A., Inc., Nintendo Co., Ltd., and Nintendo of 

America Inc. (collectively “Appellees”) in five separate 

litigations. After claim construction, the parties stipulated to non-infringement based on the district court’s construction of “an entire oscillator disposed upon said 

integrated circuit substrate.” Technology Properties 

appealed, and our court consolidated the appeals. Because the district court erred in a portion of its construction of “entire oscillator,” we vacate and remand.

I. BACKGROUND

A. The ’336 Patent

The ’336 patent discloses a microprocessor with two 

independent clocks—a variable frequency system clock 

connected to the central processing unit (“CPU”) and a

Case: 16-1306 Document: 99-2 Page: 3 Filed: 03/03/2017
4 TECH. PROPS. LTD. v. HUAWEI TECHS. CO., LTD. 

fixed-frequency clock connected to the input/output (“I/O”) 

interface. ’336 patent at 3:26–35. The variable-frequency

system clock is a ring oscillator. Id. at 16:56–57. A ring 

oscillator is made by connecting an odd number of inverters in series, then connecting the output of the final 

inverter to the input of the first, creating an inherently 

unstable (i.e., oscillating) output. Id. at Fig. 18. A ring 

oscillator’s frequency is considered “variable” because it 

fluctuates based on external stressors such as temperature and voltage. Id. at 16:59–67. For example, the same 

circuit will oscillate at 100 MHz at room temperature but 

only 50 MHz at 70 degrees Celsius. Id. 

The ’336 patent’s I/O clock is a quartz crystal. Id. 

at 17:25–27. A crystal is a piece of material that oscillates 

at a specific frequency when voltage is applied. Unlike 

ring oscillators, crystals maintain a steady frequency 

regardless of their environment. For this reason, the I/O 

clock in the ’336 patent is considered “fixed.” See id. 

at 17:33 (describing the “fixed speed” I/O interface).

The ’336 patent teaches improving microprocessor performance by decoupling the CPU and I/O clocks. The 

variable-speed CPU clock is fabricated on the same silicon 

substrate as the rest of the microprocessor, including the 

CPU itself. Id. at 16:57–58. Because the CPU and CPU 

clock are fabricated on the same silicon substrate, they 

react similarly to external stressors. Id. at 16:63–67. 

This allows the maximum processing speed of the CPU to 

track the oscillating frequency of its clock. As the patent 

describes it, the “CPU 70 will always execute at the 

maximum frequency possible, but never too fast.” Id. 

at 17:1–2. The I/O clock is located off-chip and controls 

the chip’s I/O interface. “By decoupling the variable speed 

of the CPU 70 from the fixed speed of the I/O interface 432, optimum performance can be achieved by each.” 

Id. at 17:32–34. The two-clock arrangement is illustrated 

in Figure 17:

Case: 16-1306 Document: 99-2 Page: 4 Filed: 03/03/2017
TECH. PROPS. LTD. v. HUAWEI TECHS. CO., LTD. 5

Id. at Fig. 17. 

Claim 6 of the ’336 patent is representative:

A microprocessor system comprising:

a central processing unit disposed upon an integrated circuit substrate, said central processing 

unit operating at a processing frequency and being constructed of a first plurality of electronic devices;

an entire oscillator disposed upon said integrated 

circuit substrate and connected to said central processing unit, said oscillator clocking said central 

processing unit at a clock rate and being constructed of a second plurality of electronic devices, 

thus varying the processing frequency of said first 

plurality of electronic devices and the clock rate of 

said second plurality of electronic devices in the 

same way as a function of parameter variation in 

one or more fabrication or operational parameters 

associated with said integrated circuit substrate, 

thereby enabling said processing frequency to 

Case: 16-1306 Document: 99-2 Page: 5 Filed: 03/03/2017
6 TECH. PROPS. LTD. v. HUAWEI TECHS. CO., LTD. 

track said clock rate in response to said parameter 

variation;

an on-chip input/output interface, connected between said central processing unit and an external memory bus, for facilitating exchanging 

coupling control signals, addresses and data with 

said central processing unit; and

an external clock, independent of said oscillator, 

connected to said input/output interface wherein 

said external clock is operative at a frequency independent of a clock frequency of said oscillator.

’336 patent, claim 6 (emphasis added). Claim 6 requires,

among other things, “an entire oscillator disposed upon 

said integrated circuit substrate,” which refers to the 

variable-frequency CPU clock. The district court construed the term to mean “an oscillator located entirely on 

the same semiconductor substrate as the central processing unit that does not require a control signal and 

whose frequency is not fixed by any external crystal.” 

J.A. 7 (emphasis added).1 The parties agree to the first 

half of the construction but dispute the emphasized 

portion. J.A. 13. 

Appellees contend the second half of the construction 

is proper because the patentee disclaimed certain claim 

scope during prosecution to overcome rejections based on 

U.S. Patent Nos. 4,503,500 (“Magar”) and 4,670,837 

(“Sheets”). Specifically, Appellees contend the construction “whose frequency is not fixed by any external crystal” 

is mandated by the patentee’s disclaiming statements 

relating to Magar, and the construction “that does not 

 

1 References to the district court’s opinion refer to 

the Magistrate Judge’s Claim Construction Report and 

Recommendation, which the District Judge reviewed de 

novo and adopted without modification. See J.A. 5.

Case: 16-1306 Document: 99-2 Page: 6 Filed: 03/03/2017
TECH. PROPS. LTD. v. HUAWEI TECHS. CO., LTD. 7

require a control signal” is required by disclaiming statements relating to Sheets. Each reference is discussed in 

turn below.

B. The Magar Reference

Magar is a 1985 patent assigned to Texas Instruments 

that discloses a basic microprocessor. The Magar chip 

contains a clock generator (CLOCK GEN) located on the 

same silicon substrate as the remainder of the processor. 

The inputs of CLOCK GEN are pins X1 and X2, which are 

connected to a crystal or some other external generator. 

CLOCK GEN uses the signal from the external crystal to 

generate four clocks, Q1–Q4, that drive the chip. CLOCK 

GEN also regulates the chip’s timing or synchronization 

with external components with the CLKOUT pin. This is 

illustrated in Figure 2a:

J.A. 2044.

During prosecution, the examiner rejected what 

would become claim 6 of the ’336 patent under 35 U.S.C. 

§ 103 in light of Magar. The patentee responded that 

Case: 16-1306 Document: 99-2 Page: 7 Filed: 03/03/2017
8 TECH. PROPS. LTD. v. HUAWEI TECHS. CO., LTD. 

Magar did not disclose the “entire oscillator” limitation 

and sought to traverse the rejection. In doing so, it made 

several statements the district court found to be disclaiming. First, the district court found that the patentee 

“attempted to distinguish Magar by emphasizing that the 

clock disclosed in Magar was fixed by a crystal that was 

external to the microprocessor, unlike their on-chip variable speed clock.” J.A. 9 (citing the following statement

from the prosecution history). 

[O]ne of ordinary skill in the art should readily 

recognize that the speed of the cpu [sic] and the 

clock do not vary together due to manufacturing 

variation, operating voltage and temperature of 

the [integrated circuit] in the Magar microprocessor, as taught in the above quotation from the reference. This is simply because the Magar 

microprocessor clock is frequency controlled by a 

crystal which is also external to the microprocessor. Crystals are by design fixed-frequency devices whose oscillation speed is designed to be tightly 

controlled and to vary minimally due to variations 

in manufacturing, operating voltage and temperature. The Magar microprocessor in no way contemplates a variable speed clock as claimed. 

J.A. 2092–93. Next, the district court stated that “the 

applicants also argued that the Magar clock could not 

practice the claimed invention because of its reliance on a 

crystal, which by its nature cannot vary its oscillator 

frequency.” J.A. 9 (citing the following statement from 

the prosecution history).

[C]rystal oscillators have never, to Applicant’s 

knowledge, been fabricated on a single silicon 

substrate with a CPU, for instance. Even if they 

were, as previously mentioned, crystals are by design fixed-frequency devices whose oscillation frequency is designed to be tightly controlled and to 

Case: 16-1306 Document: 99-2 Page: 8 Filed: 03/03/2017
TECH. PROPS. LTD. v. HUAWEI TECHS. CO., LTD. 9

vary minimally due to variations in manufacturing, operating voltage and temperature. The oscillation frequency of a crystal on the same 

substrate with the microprocessor would inherently not vary due to variations in manufacturing, 

operating voltage and temperature in the same 

way as the frequency capability of the microprocessor on the same underlying substrate, as 

claimed. 

J.A. 2093. Third, the district court held that “[t]he applicants also disclaimed the use of an external crystal to 

cause clock signal oscillation.” J.A. 10 (citing the following statement from the prosecution history).

Magar’s clock generator relies on an external crystal connected to terminals X1 and X2 to oscillate, 

as is conventional in microprocessor designs. It is 

not an entire oscillator in itself. And with the 

crystal, the clock rate generated is also conventional in that it is at a fixed, not a variable, frequency. The Magar clock is comparable in 

operation to the conventional crystal clock 434 depicted in Fig. 17 of the present application for controlling the I/O interface at a fixed rate frequency, 

and not at all like the clock on which the claims 

are based, as has been previously stated. 

J.A. 2101. Based on these statements, the district court 

concluded that “the applicants surrendered any oscillator 

that like Magar’s is fixed by an off-chip crystal” and held 

that the construction of “entire oscillator” must include 

the limitation “whose frequency is not fixed by any external crystal.” J.A. 7, 15. 

C. The Sheets Reference

Sheets is a patent assigned to AT&T/Bell Labs that 

discloses a microprocessor with a variable-frequency 

clock. The Sheets CPU conserves power by occasionally 

Case: 16-1306 Document: 99-2 Page: 9 Filed: 03/03/2017
10 TECH. PROPS. LTD. v. HUAWEI TECHS. CO., LTD. 

operating below its maximum frequency. The clock’s

frequency correlates to the processing demands faced by 

the CPU. When the CPU faces a heavier processing load, 

its clock runs at a higher frequency. When the CPU faces 

a lighter load, its clock runs at a lower frequency. 

Sheets teaches a CPU timed by a voltage-controlled 

oscillator (“VCO”), which transmits the clock signal to the 

CPU. The CPU constantly measures its current processing load and computes an appropriate operating 

frequency. It communicates this information to the VCO, 

which throttles its frequency accordingly. 

The examiner initially rejected claim 6 of the 

’336 patent under § 103 in light of Sheets. Like the 

Magar reference, the patentee traversed the rejection by 

arguing Sheets failed to disclose an “entire oscillator,” 

along the way making several statements the district 

court found constituted disclaimers. First, the district 

court noted that “the applicants distinguished their 

‘present invention’ from microprocessors that rely on 

frequency control information from an external source.” 

J.A. 10 (citing the following statement from the prosecution history).

The present invention does not similarly rely upon 

provision of frequency control information to an 

external clock, but instead contemplates providing 

a ring oscillator clock and the microprocessor 

within the same integrated circuit. The placement of these elements within the same integrated circuit obviates the need for provision of the 

type of frequency control information described by 

Sheets, since the microprocessor and clock will 

naturally tend to vary commensurately in speed 

as a function of various parameters (e.g., temperature) affecting circuit performance. Sheets’ system for providing clock control signals to an 

external clock is thus seen to be unrelated to the 

Case: 16-1306 Document: 99-2 Page: 10 Filed: 03/03/2017
TECH. PROPS. LTD. v. HUAWEI TECHS. CO., LTD. 11

integral microprocessor/clock system of the present invention. 

J.A. 2117. Second, addressing statements made in response to a later office action, the district court found that 

“the applicants went even further and disclaimed the use 

of controlled inputs altogether, regardless whether the 

control is on-chip or not.” J.A. 11 (citing the following 

statement from the prosecution history). 

Even if the Examiner is correct that the variable 

clock in Sheets is in the same integrated circuit as 

the microprocessor of system 100, that still does 

not give [sic] the claimed subject matter. In 

Sheets, a command input is required to change 

the clock speed. In the present invention, the 

clock speed varies correspondingly to variations in 

operating parameters of the electronic devices of 

the microprocessor because both the variable 

speed clock and the microprocessor are fabricated 

together in the same integrated circuit. No command input is necessary to change the clock frequency. 

J.A. 2127. Third, the district court found that “the applicants left no doubt that, unlike ‘all cited references,’ the 

claimed oscillator is completely free of inputs and extra 

components.” J.A. 11 (citing the following statement from 

the prosecution history). 

Crucial to the present invention is that since both 

the oscillator or variable speed clock and driven 

device are on the same substrate, when the fabrication and environmental parameters vary, the 

oscillation or clock frequency and the frequency 

capability of the driven device will automatically 

vary together. This differs from all cited references in that the oscillator or variable speed clock 

and the driven device are on the same substrate, 

and that the oscillator or variable speed clock varCase: 16-1306 Document: 99-2 Page: 11 Filed: 03/03/2017
12 TECH. PROPS. LTD. v. HUAWEI TECHS. CO., LTD. 

ies in frequency but does not require manual or 

programmed inputs or external or extra components to do so. 

J.A. 2094. The district court found that based on these 

statements, “[t]he applicants distinguished Sheets repeatedly on the ground that Sheets requires control 

signals, frequency control information or command inputs.” J.A. 16. It then held that the construction of 

“entire oscillator” must include the limitation “that does 

not require a control signal.” J.A. 7.

Technology Properties appeals the district court’s construction. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 

§ 1295(a)(1).

II. DISCUSSION

An applicant’s statements to the PTO characterizing 

its invention may give rise to prosecution disclaimer. 

Uship Intellectual Props., LLC v. United States, 714 F.3d 

1311, 1315 (Fed. Cir. 2013). Prosecution disclaimer can 

arise from both claim amendments and arguments made 

to the PTO. Biogen Idec, Inc. v. GlaxoSmithKline LLC, 

713 F.3d 1090, 1095 (Fed. Cir. 2013). The doctrine does 

not apply unless the disclaimer is “both clear and unmistakable to one of ordinary skill in the art.” Elbex Video, 

Ltd. v. Sensormatic Elecs. Corp., 508 F.3d 1366, 1371 

(Fed. Cir. 2007) (quotations omitted). When determining 

whether disclaimer applies, we consider the statements in 

the context of the entire prosecution. MIT v. Shire 

Pharm., Inc., 839 F.3d 1111, 1119 (Fed. Cir. 2016). If the 

challenged statements are ambiguous or amenable to 

multiple reasonable interpretations, prosecution disclaimer is not established. Id. 

We review claim construction de novo except for subsidiary fact findings, which we review for clear error. 

Teva Pharm. USA, Inc. v. Sandoz, Inc., 135 S. Ct. 831, 

841–42 (2015).

Case: 16-1306 Document: 99-2 Page: 12 Filed: 03/03/2017
TECH. PROPS. LTD. v. HUAWEI TECHS. CO., LTD. 13

A. Disclaimer Based on Magar

Technology Properties argues the district court erred 

by limiting an “entire oscillator” to one “whose frequency 

is not fixed by any external crystal.” It distinguishes

Magar by arguing that Magar requires an off-chip crystal 

oscillator, while claim 6 of the ’336 patent generates the 

CPU clock signal on-chip. It argues Magar’s only oscillator is the off-chip crystal that is input to CLOCK GEN, 

which is located on the same silicon substrate as the CPU. 

It argues CLOCK GEN itself is not an oscillator because 

it simply takes the output of the off-chip crystal and 

modifies it to produce four derivative signals. For these 

reasons, it argues Magar is distinguishable from the 

claimed invention because Magar’s clock signal is generated off-chip, while the ’336 patent claims generate a 

clock signal on-chip. It contends the district court misinterpreted this argument in the prosecution history. See

Appellants’ Br. 34–43.

The argument Technology Properties raises on appeal 

may have been sufficient to traverse the Magar rejection

and avoid a narrower construction, but this is not the 

same argument the patentee presented during prosecution. Throughout the prosecution history, the patentee 

argued Magar was distinguishable for two specific reasons: (1) it discloses a fixed-frequency crystal rather than 

a variable-frequency ring oscillator, and (2) it requires an 

external (off-chip) generator. The patentee made these 

distinctions in the first paragraph of its first office action 

response addressing Magar, arguing Magar was distinguishable because “the clock disclosed in the Magar 

reference is in fact driven by a fixed frequency crystal, 

which is external to the Magar integrated circuit.” 

J.A. 2091. And the patentee included these distinctions in 

its concluding paragraph to a later office action response, 

summarizing that Magar was “specifically distinguished 

from the instant case in that it is both fixed-frequency 

(being crystal based) and requires an external crystal or 

Case: 16-1306 Document: 99-2 Page: 13 Filed: 03/03/2017
14 TECH. PROPS. LTD. v. HUAWEI TECHS. CO., LTD. 

external frequency generator.” J.A. 2103 (emphasis 

added). The district court’s construction properly includes 

both of the patentee’s clear disclaimers. 

The first aspect of the patentee’s disclaimer is that 

the “entire oscillator” cannot be a fixed-frequency crystal 

oscillator. The patentee argued to the examiner, “it is 

clear that the element in Fig. 17 [of the ’336 patent] 

missing from Fig. 2a in Magar is the ring counter variable 

speed clock 430.” J.A. 2092. It explained that “[t]he 

Magar microprocessor in no way contemplates a variable 

speed clock as claimed.” J.A. 2093. It then distinguished 

Magar on the grounds that its crystal clock rate “is at a 

fixed, not a variable, frequency.” J.A. 2101. We agree 

with the district court’s conclusion that based on these 

statements, the “entire oscillator” must be a variable 

frequency oscillator rather than a fixed-frequency crystal. 

See J.A. 9–10. The patentee’s disclaimer may not have 

been necessary, but its statements made to overcome 

Magar were clear and unmistakable. 

The second aspect of the patentee’s disclaimer is that 

the “entire oscillator” cannot require an external crystal 

or frequency generator. During prosecution, the patentee 

characterized Magar as teaching a “frequency controlled 

by a crystal which is also external to the microprocessor.” 

J.A. 2092–93. It argued Magar was distinguishable 

because “Magar’s clock generator relies on an external 

crystal . . . to oscillate.” J.A. 2101. Unlike the claimed 

“entire oscillator,” the patentee stated that Magar’s onchip clock generator in isolation “lacks the crystal or 

external generator” necessary to run the on-chip clock 

generator. J.A. 2102. And it explained that the 

’336 patent’s entire oscillator was novel because “it oscillates without external components (unlike the Magar 

reference).” J.A. 2102. We hold that the district court’s 

narrowing construction based on Magar—“whose frequency is not fixed by any external crystal”—properly encapsulates the patentee’s disclaiming statements. 

Case: 16-1306 Document: 99-2 Page: 14 Filed: 03/03/2017
TECH. PROPS. LTD. v. HUAWEI TECHS. CO., LTD. 15

Technology Properties presented clear and concise arguments about the distinctions between Magar and the 

’336 patent in its briefing to our court. Had those same 

arguments been made to the Patent Office, our construction may have been different because the patentee likely 

disclaimed more than was necessary to overcome the 

examiner’s rejection. But the scope of surrender is not

limited to what is absolutely necessary to avoid a prior art 

reference; patentees may surrender more than necessary. 

See Norian Corp. v. Stryker Corp., 432 F.3d 1356, 1361–62 

(Fed. Cir. 2005); Fantasy Sports Props., Inc. v. 

Sportsline.com, Inc., 287 F.3d 1108, 1114–15 (Fed. Cir. 

2002). When this happens, we hold patentees to the 

actual arguments made, not the arguments that could

have been made. Norian, 432 F.3d at 1361–62. The 

question is what a person of ordinary skill would understand the patentee to have disclaimed during prosecution, 

not what a person of ordinary skill would think the patentee needed to disclaim during prosecution.

We affirm the district court’s construction that an “entire oscillator” is one “whose frequency is not fixed by any 

external crystal.”

B. Disclaimer Based on Sheets

Technology Properties argues the district court erred 

by limiting an “entire oscillator” to one “that does not 

require a control signal.” We hold that the term is properly construed as one “that does not require a command 

input to change the clock frequency.”

The district court erred by holding that the patentee 

disclaimed any use of a command signal by the entire 

oscillator. Instead, the patentee disclaimed a particular 

use of a command signal—using a command signal to 

change the clock frequency. The patentee argued during 

prosecution that Sheets was distinguishable from the 

’336 patent claims because Sheets requires “a command 

input . . . to change the clock speed.” J.A. 2127. It deCase: 16-1306 Document: 99-2 Page: 15 Filed: 03/03/2017
16 TECH. PROPS. LTD. v. HUAWEI TECHS. CO., LTD. 

scribed Sheets’ system “for providing clock control signals 

to an external clock” as “unrelated” to the claimed invention. J.A. 2117. Conversely, it stated that in the 

’336 patent, “[n]o command input is necessary to change 

the clock frequency.” J.A. 2127. It argued its claims did 

not “rely upon [the] provision of frequency control information to an external clock” taught in Sheets because all 

claimed components were located on the same substrate. 

J.A. 2117. By placing all components on the same substrate, it “obviate[d]” the need for “the type of frequency 

control information described by Sheets.” Id. 

None of these statements disclaim an entire oscillator 

receiving a command input for any purpose. Every time 

the patentee mentioned a “control signal” or “command 

input,” it did so only in the context of using a command 

input to modify the frequency of the CPU clock. This 

understanding is consistent with the patentee’s characterization of the benefits of its invention. It argued that by 

placing the CPU and CPU clock on the same silicon 

substrate, the frequencies of both “automatically vary 

together.” J.A. 2094. This eliminates the need for a 

command input to change clock frequency. As the patentee explained, “the oscillator or variable speed clock varies 

in frequency but does not require manual or programmed 

inputs or external or extra components to do so.” Id. 

We hold that an “entire oscillator” is one “that does 

not require a command input to change the clock frequency.”

III. CONCLUSION

We hold that “an entire oscillator disposed upon said 

integrated circuit substrate” is “an oscillator located 

entirely on the same semiconductor substrate as the 

central processing unit that does not require a command 

input to change the clock frequency and whose frequency 

is not fixed by any external crystal.” Although this minor 

modification to the district court’s construction likely does 

Case: 16-1306 Document: 99-2 Page: 16 Filed: 03/03/2017
TECH. PROPS. LTD. v. HUAWEI TECHS. CO., LTD. 17

not affect the outcome in this case, because the parties 

stipulated to non-infringement under the district court’s 

construction, the proper course of action is for us to vacate 

and remand. We vacate the district court’s construction 

and remand for further proceedings.

VACATED AND REMANDED

COSTS

No costs on this appeal.

Case: 16-1306 Document: 99-2 Page: 17 Filed: 03/03/2017