method of rotation, i.e., manual rotation of the propeller via a hand crank. Under the doctrine of prosecution history estoppel, an applicant is barred from expanding the literal meaning of a claim through the application of the doctrine of equivalents if the applicant relinquished coverage of the subject matter during the prosecution of the patent, either by argument or by amendment. See, e.g., CAE Screenplates, Inc. v. Heinrich Fiedler GmbH & Co. KG, 224 F.3d 1308, 1319 (Fed.Cir.2000). “Just as prosecution history estoppel may act to estop an equivalence- argument under -the doctrine of equivalents, positions taken before the PTO may bar an inconsistent position on claim construction under § 112, ¶ 6.” Alpex Computer Corp. v. Nintendo Co. Ltd., 102 F.3d 1214, 1221 (Fed.Cir.1996) (<HOLDING>). However, in this case, Ryan did not
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 foreign states prosecution did not bar subsequent florida prosecution for same conduct holding that a court can correct a patent claim for a grammatical error where the prosecution history does not suggest a different interpretation of the claims holding that prosecution history estoppel applied to bar the plaintiff patent owner from asserting that the claim construction should cover a system using shift registers be cause it had specifically defined its claims during prosecution as not covering such a system holding that prosecution history will limit the interpretation of claim terms so as toexclude any interpretation that was disclaimed during prosecution