“In the first reexamination of the ’385 Patent, the Board construed Claim 1 to require the claimed coupler to ‘be “designed to match the most common characteristic impedance of the air where the wireless transmitter/receiver will be used”‘ and found Claim 1 patentable because the art of record did not disclose the claimed coupler.”
“The issues are:” 1. “If the Board did not intend to deviate from its earlier construction, whether the Board faithfully applied this construction?” 2. “If the Board did intend to deviate from its earlier construction, (a) whether the new construction is precluded by the doctrine of prosecution history disclaimer, and (b) whether the new construction is consistent with the intrinsic record?”
