Court Opinion

ID: 9472029
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-05 03:47:23.042172+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:42:42.409840
License: Public Domain

DAVIS, Circuit Judge,
dissenting.
I am not persuaded that the Board of Patent Interferences erred when it held that, giving the counts the broadest reasonable interpretation, the phrase “one core portion” is not as limited as “one leg” or “one pole”, but includes a U-shaped core. The Board based this reading on (a) the language of the count (“one core portion”) which is broader than “pole” or “leg”, and (b) prosecution history of the Burson patent, including the application, the original specification and claims, and the patent specification which shows that Burson intended “one core portion” to be broader than “one pole” or “one leg”.1 This is by no means an open-or-shut matter, and I see no adequate reason to reject the Board’s reasoned conclusion.2

. In the course of prosecution, Burson stated that "the heart” of his invention was a capacitor discharge ignition system comprised of only three coils all mounted on a single pole “or other portion of a ferromagnetic core”. (Emphasis added) The specification also says “one pole or other portion”.

. In view of the majority’s disposition of the case, I do not reach the other issues argued by the parties.