to be addressed in the reissue declaration. Surgin argues that the changes do alter the scope of the claims, and that the failure to address them in the reissue declaration renders the claims invalid. Both Site and Surgin have submitted large numbers of affidavits concerning the significance of the changes identified by Surgin. Surgin correctly states that, because claim interpretation is a matter of law, the question whether the changes in the reissue claims substantively alter the scope of the claims is also a question of law. Nonetheless, the question whether the scope of claims has been substantively altered cannot be adjudicated in a summary fashion, because its resolution turns on underlying factual disputes. See Tillotson, Inc. v. Walbro Corp., 831 F.2d 1033, 1038 (Fed.Cir.1987) (<HOLDING>). In addition to arguing that the changes made
holding that prosecution history will limit the interpretation of claim terms so as toexclude any interpretation that was disclaimed during prosecution holding that although term was not limited by the specification it was expressly defined in a narrow manner in the prosecution history holding that in order to understand patent claims a court can take instruction from the other claims the specification and the prosecution history holding that summary judgment was improperly granted in view of the need for careful interpretation of the original and reissue claims in light of the specification the prosecution history and the alleged industry practice holding that because the language of the easement was ambiguous the parties intentions were not clear and summary judgment was improperly granted