The CAFC concluded that although the term 'option' was not explicitly stated in the claim language or the specification, it was clearly defined through the prosecution history, indicating that the understanding of 'option' does not solely rely on its specific wording but rather on the context and intention established during the patent's review process.
In its ruling, the CAFC found that the ambiguity surrounding the term 'option' could be clarified by examining the prosecution history, which revealed the intent and nuances of the term as it relates to the broader understanding of the patent's claims and its purpose.
Collection
[
|
...
]