the specification otherwise would improperly broaden the scope of the invention. See On Demand Machine, 442 F.3d at 1340. It does not necessarily follow, however, that the preamble term “fixed dose combination” is necessary to breathe life and vitality into the claim. 3. The Prosecution Histories Beyond the specifications and claim language, Gilead claims that further support for its proposed construction can be found in the prosecution histories of the patents-in-suit. See Ormco Corporation v. Align Technology, Inc., 498 F.3d 1307, 1314 (Fed.Cir.2007). “Like the specification, the prosecution history provides evidence of how the PTO and the inventor understood the patent.” Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1317; see also Sentry Prods., Inc. v. Eagle Mfg. Co., 400 F.3d 910, 915 (Fed.Cir.2005) (<HOLDING>). In its application for the '397 patent,
holding a court may consider a defendants criminal history even if that history is included in the defendants criminal history category holding that the prosecution history may modify a claim terms scope if the patentee expressly disclaimed the prior arts subject matter holding that prosecution history will limit the interpretation of claim terms so as toexclude any interpretation that was disclaimed during prosecution holding patentees are restricted by prosecution history estoppel to the scope of what they ultimately claim holding that although term was not limited by the specification it was expressly defined in a narrow manner in the prosecution history