Whether “[t]his Court’s decision summarily affirming the district court’s judgment under Rule 36 without elaboration necessarily relied upon a flawed district court claim construction interpreting claim terms including the words ‘serial processor’ in a manner inconsistent with: 1) their ‘meaning in the field’ (including by Intel itself outside of this dispute), 2) the full language of the claims, and 3) their ‘meaning . . . within the context of the patent’ (including the very purpose of the invention) contrary to this Court’s seminal Phillips claim construction decision.”
