Opinion ID: 3066478
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: “Prescribed coupon limits”

Text: The district court construed “prescribed coupon limits” as being “predetermined limits on the number of coupons collectively and per store.” District Court Opinion at 20. On appeal, Catalina argues that the district court’s construction is too limiting. Instead, it argues that “prescribed coupon limits” should have been construed as the “designated maximum quantity or number” of coupons. Catalina’s argument, however, is refuted by the prosecution history of the ’041 patent. During the course of prosecuting the ’041 patent, the named inventors amended the term “prescribed coupon criteria” in their original patent application to “prescribed coupon limits.” Going further, they stated that, according to the specification, the term “prescribed coupon criteria” was “exemplified by the per store limits, the per day limits and the per customer limits as indicated.” District Court Opinion at 20. In explaining their amendment to claim 1, they stated that, “Claim 1 has been amended and the phrase ‘prescribed coupon criteria’ has been replaced by ‘prescribed coupon limits’ which may more effectively communicate the same idea.” Id. What the inventors represented to the patent examiner at the time of prosecution Catalina cannot now retract. 03-1548, -1627 8 Accordingly, the district court’s construction of “prescribed coupon limits” is upheld.