If the specification “reveal[s] a special definition given to a claim term by the patentee that differs from the meaning it would otherwise possess[,] ... the inventor’s lexicography governs.” Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1316 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc) (citing CCS Fitness, Inc. v. Brunswick Corp., 288 F.3d 1359, 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2002)).
Patent Owner argues that “Numazaki requires two photo-detection units to perform an analysis of a target object and control the computer, so it does not teach or suggest ‘determining’ finger movement from reflected light that is ‘electro-optically’ sensed using one ‘sensor means,’ as set forth in [the] claim.” PO Resp. 13.
For the above reasons, Patent Owner’s arguments do not undermine the showing by Petitioner that Numazaki in view of the knowledge of a PHOSITA teaches all of the aspects of the determining movement claim element.
For the above reasons, Patent Owner’s arguments do not undermine the showing by Petitioner that Numazaki in view of the knowledge of a PHOSITA teaches all of the aspects of the computer means claim element.
Petitioner argues that Numazaki’s fifth embodiment teaches a “conference record system” or TV telephone and that “a PHOSITA would have been motivated to implement this transmission functionality in the portable device described in Numazaki’s eighth embodiment.” Pet. at 32–33 (citing Ex. 1003, 38:6–16, 40:16–49; Ex. 1008 ¶¶ 50–52, 58): id. at 33–34.