recognizes that disavowal would not apply when a “person of reasonable intelligence would not be misled into relying on the erroneous statement.” See Biotec Biolo-gische Naturverpackungen GmbH & Co. v. Biocorp, Inc., 249 F.3d 1341, 1348 (Fed.Cir.2001). Here, however, the statement does not appear to be erroneous. Rather, the Applicant’s statement that Claim 1 “requires motion of both of the actuators if the base effector is to move at all,” was clear cut and repeated in the “Letter After Final.” See Springs Window Fashions LP v. Novo Indus., L.P., 323 F.3d 989, 994-96 (Fed.Cir.2003) (recognizing statements in prosecution history to constitute a disclaimer when such statements are “detailed, consistent, and repeated.”); cf. Tektel, Inc. v. United States, 116 Fed.Cl. 612, 624 (2013) (<HOLDING>). Contrary to Plaintiffs suggestion of a
holding that where the appellant has failed to demonstrate error the court is not required to search the record for an error holding where there is a dearth of evidence suggesting that the government made a scriveners error the court had no basis to conclude a scriveners error occurred holding that where the record is insufficient to show that the alleged error occurred the presumption that the trial court acted without error must prevail holding that in order to conclude that federal constitutional error is harmless court must find that error harmless beyond a reasonable doubt holding that even if there is error in failing to award nominal damages to a plaintiff such error is not a basis for reversal