Opinion ID: 4150049
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Disclaimer Based on Magar

Text: 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 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. 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.”