RE: RE: Oh sangeth? short of reversing the SJ the CAFC could not have said much more nor in a stronger tone than their brief indicated:
1) There is no indication in the specification that the location facility is a physical device rather than software. The terms “facility” and “program” are used interchangeably in the specification, suggesting that the “facilities” referenced throughout the patent are software, rather than hardware, components.
2) The claim language makes clear that the location facility in fact does perform the functions in question. The district court correctly incorporated those functions into its claim construction.
3) LogMeIn argues that the district court’s construction is supported by the fact that the claims refer to the locator server computer in the singular. It points to language such as the following: “a locator server computer linked to the Internet, its location on the Internet being defined by a static IP address.” ’479 Patent col. 10 ll. 51-53 (emphasis added); see also id. col. 10 ll. 61-62 (“the data communication facility includes data corresponding to the static IP address of the locator server computer”) (emphasis added). LogMeIn asserts that “because ‘its’ and ‘the’ are singular terms, the claimed ‘location facility’ must be a software component that is included within a single locator server computer.” LogMeIn’s argument is at odds with our well-established precedent. “As a general rule, the words ‘a’ or ‘an’ in a patent claim carry the meaning of ‘one or more.’” TiVo, Inc. v. EchoStar Commc’ns Corp., 516 F.3d 1290, 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2008). “The exceptions to this rule are extremely limited: a patentee must evince a clear intent to limit ‘a’ or ‘an’ to ‘one.’” Baldwin Graphic Sys., Inc. v. Siebert, Inc., 512 F.3d 1338, 1342 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted).
5) “A patentee’s statements during reexamination can be considered during claim construction, in keeping with the doctrine of prosecution disclaimer.” Krippelz v. Ford Motor Co., 667 F.3d 1261, 1266 (Fed. Cir. 2012). “An ambiguous disclaimer, however, does not advance the patent’s notice function or justify public reliance, and the court will not use it to limit a claim term’s ordinary meaning.” Sandisk, 415 F.3d at 1287. “There is no ‘clear and unmistakable’ disclaimer if a prosecution argument is subject to more than one reasonable interpretation, one of which is consistent with a proffered meaning of the disputed term.” Id.
6) The examiner agreed, JA 27677-78, 27692, and found the subject claims patentable over Crichton and other prior art of record on the basis that, “the prior art fails to teach or suggest that the location facility determines the then cur-rent location of the personal computer and creates a com-munication channel between the remote computer and the personal computer,” JA 27696. Nothing in the record suggests a disclaimer based upon Dr. Ganger’s statements.
the judges told Hilton that logmein misled them as clearly as possible "LogMeIn’s argument is at odds with our well-established precedent. "
So I am Judge Hilton- ???