Court Opinion

ID: 9440914
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-03 17:12:44.658706+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:28:00.241097
License: Public Domain

*1376COTE, District Judge,
dissenting.
I respectfully dissent. I believe that when the prosecution history and the patent are considered together, the evidence is clear and unambiguous that Elbex’s reference to a “monitor” :in its response to the PTO Office Action was a strategic choice and an unmistakable surrender of claim scope. Elbex made significant revisions to Claim 1 in what became the '085 patent in order to obtain the patent, and is now trying to recapture what it chose to abandon in the proceedings before the PTO. I would affirm: