the Hawkins reference also describes communication between the base unit and an outside telephone network in the event that the portable unit and base unit have matching IDs. Id. at [57]. The district court found this argument unpersuasive in part because “Lev, who already had both the Blum and Hawkins patents before him ..., added the Baker patent to the mix of prior art in the '009 prosecution, and then relied on it in rejecting claims to a portable handheld terminal.” Findings and Conclusions, slip op. at 25. “Clearly,” the court continued, “Examiner Lev did not view Baker as cumulative, but rather treated it as an important addition to the prior art previously cited by Mr. Schumann.” Id. (emphasis in original); cf. Molins PLC v. Textron, Inc., 48 F.3d 1172, 1180 (Fed.Cir.1995) (<HOLDING>). The court also viewed the Baker patent as
holding that trial court did not err holding that superior court did not clearly err in finding that the parent had not remedied the problematic conduct holding that a district court did not clearly err in finding materiality where the prior art reference at issue had been considered material by examiners in related foreign patent applications holding that a trial court did not clearly err in finding that an attorney fees clause materially altered a contract holding that the district court to not clearly err in finding that a distance of 100 feet is within the curtilage