REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN v. LEICA MICROSYSTEMS, INC. [OPINION]

REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN v. LEICA MICROSYSTEMS, INC. [OPINION] Fallback draft only: OPENAI_API_KEY is not set or the API call failed, so this entry was not model-summarized. Review the linked PDF before publication. The extracted conclusion below is included for audit. AFFIRMED conclusion that "said supercontinuum white light pulse" must include the "entire spectrum" of white light. Further, the specifi- cation provides additional support for the district court's claim construction. It indicates that the "entire spectrum" reaches the sample and rejects the use of filters. See '169 patent col. 4 ll. 8–9, 44–45, col. 3 ll. 29–32, col. 6 ll. 24–29. Finally, we agree with the district court's assessment of the prosecution history. In an amendment aimed at overcoming a prior-art rejection, Michigan stated: Itoh et al. teaches selecting several discrete wave- lengths from a white light continuous spectrum and using those discrete wavelengths, not the en- tire spectrum, to excite only those fluorophores that have excitation spectra matched with the se- lected discrete wavelengths. In contrast, the pre- sent invention uses and claims the entire spectrum of the white li claim construction non-precedential claim construction non-precedential claim construction