I'm not saying Apple argued a broader interpretation.
I'm saying it's
a reasonable possibility that has occurred due to the issues Samsung's
filing has raised.
I haven't had much time yet, I plan on doing the
research more thoroughly this weekend. What I have found so far is a lack of
information with regards actually confirming the scope of the Markman hearing
with regards Claim 19.
Because there is a lack of such information (so
far) it's my humble opinion that anyone voicing an opinion on the subject is
voicing said opinion without having full information available. As a result,
all the opinions have equal weighting of reasonableness.
And it's
certainly true that any opinion on how the Jury itself understood the claim
language is even more at risk of not having pertinent information available.
The exception, of course, is if the individual was a member of the Jury and as a
result has inside knowledge to how the Jury arrived at their
conclusions.
To be crystal clear: I'm not identifying which of the two
(Apple or Samsung) is right. I'm saying there is a reasonable possibility that
Samsung is right. Which logically means there is also a reasonable possibility
that (however Apple responds to the filing) Apple is right. There is also the
possibility that both could be right from their particular
perspectives.
However, there is a voice in these threads which appears
far more certain on the situation. And the only way such a voice could be so
certain is to have inside knowledge into the situation. Such individual (which
may be you and it may not) has only recently decided to start providing
citations (post with the subject "Dear Samsung, Your Pantaloons are Combusting"
- I assume it's the same individual who is so positive) to support his/her
position. I'll be reviewing that in context of the "Samsung is wrong" position
and the reasonableness of Samsung's position in light of that as well.
To
support the reasonable position that some Patent Lawyers do argue a narrow
interpretation to get the grant and then argue a broader interpretation when
enforcing it, I'm going to try and find that recent PTAB citation where they
clearly outlined that exact scenario. To the detriment of the Patent Holder -
PTAB decided to use the broad definition the holder argued in Court and
invalidated the patent.
RAS[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
| 
