is not permitted to assert in a subsequent infringement action that the same structure is equivalent to the structure described in the patentee’s specification for purposes of section 112 paragraph 6. Id. Based on the clear disavowal found in the file wrapper, we concluded that the accused device did not include an equivalent to the claimed function’s corresponding structure. Id. at 1362, 268 F.3d 1352, 60 USPQ2d at 1501; see also Bell Atl. Network, 262 F.3d at 1273-75, 59 USPQ2d at 1874-76 (relying on prosecution history to limit claimed “transceiver” to the three stated modes, because of clearly limiting statements made by the patentee to the examiner to overcome a prior art rejection); Day Int’l, Inc. v. Reeves Bros., Inc., 260 F.3d 1343, 1349, 59 USPQ2d 1790, 1794 (Fed.Cir.2001) (<HOLDING>); Southwall, 54 F.3d at 1576-77, 34 USPQ2d at
holding that the patentee had disavowed curing done at the higher conventional curing temperatures because of representations to the patent examiner that the prior art curing temperatures were too high and because of the numerous references to a low temperature cure or low temperature vulcanization throughout the file wrapper holding that the one challenging the patent must in part show that the subject matter of the sale or offer to sell fully anticipated the claimed invention or would have rendered it obvious by its addition to the prior art holding that after reading the patent a person of skill in the art would not understand the patentee to have invented a generic method where the patent only disclosed one embodiment of it holding that the moving party must show prior art references which alone or combined with other references would have rendered the invention obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention holding of obviousness affirmed on the basis of the teachings of the prior art references in combination not on the basis of the contemporaneous invention