the intrinsic evidence, the Court is unable to resolve a disputed claim term, it may consider extrinsic evidence, such as expert testimony, inventor testimony, and technical treatises and articles. Vitronics Corp., 90 F.3d at 1584. 47. The patent examiner’s reason for allowance is a part of the prosecution history and is relevant to the proper construction of the claims allowed. Torpharm, Inc. v. Ranbaxy Pharm., Inc., 336 F.3d 1322, 1330 (Fed.Cir.2003). “[T]he public is entitled to equate an inventor’s acquiescence to the examiner’s narrow view of patentable subject matter with abandonment of the rest.” Id. Such acquiescence may be found where the patentee allows the examiner’s narrow interpretation of a claim to stand. Elkay Mfg. Co. v. Ebco Mfg. Co., 192 F.3d 973, 979 (Fed.Cir.1999)(<HOLDING>). Construction of “Excising a Second Disk from
holding that patentees failure to respond to examiners statements in the reasons for allowance effectively prohibited a different construction of the claim holding a termination claim is far different from a failure to accommodate claim holding that claim construction is a matter of law for the court to determine holding outofcourt statements relating to reasons for investigation are not admissible where the reasons for the investigation are not at issue holding that claim construction is an issue of law for the court not a question of fact for the jury