REISSUE NON-FINAL OFFICE ACTION
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114 (“RCE”), including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on January 15, 2026 has been entered.
This is a Non-Final Office Action in Reissue Application 18/114,216 (“the ‘216 application”) for U.S. Patent No. 8,983,479 (“the ‘479 Patent”) in response to the RCE filed January 15, 2026.
Claims 1-26 have been previously canceled. Claims 27-41 have been previously added. Claims 27, 30-32, 35, and 36 are currently amended. Claims 27-41 are now pending.
Priority
The ‘216 application is a continuation reissue application of reissue application 16/729,494 (now RE49,441), which is a continuation reissue of reissue application 15/461,397 (now RE47,793), which is reissue of the ‘479 Patent, which was filed April 28, 2010.
Since the ‘216 application is a reissue application of a patent with an effective filing date before March 16, 2013, the present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions.
Reason for Reissue
This is a broadening reissue based on the Reissue Declaration (“Reissue Dec”) filed February 24, 2023, which states,
“Applicant/Patentee seeks a broadening reissue, since Applicant/Patentee believes the original patent to be partly inoperative or invalid by reason that Applicant/Patentee claimed less than Applicant/Patentee had the right to claim in the patent. At least one example upon which this reissue is based lies in the fact that the claims include unduly narrow limitations. In particular, claim 11 includes the limitations
“transmitting a virtual cell-specific information and a virtual terminal-specific information”
which is unduly narrow and have resulted in Applicant/Patentee’s having claimed in the original patent less than Applicant/Patentee had the right to claim. Applicant/Patentee hereby unequivocally states the intent to broaden the claims, including claim 11, of the issued patent by eliminating the aforementioned limitations.”
Defective Reissue Declaration
The Reissue Dec is defective as the patent number on p. 1 is not legible. A corrected declaration is required.
Claims 27-41 are rejected as being based upon a defective reissue declaration under 35 U.S.C. 251 as set forth above. See 37 CFR 1.175.
Terminal Disclaimer
The terminal disclaimer filed on June 27, 2025 disclaiming the terminal portion of any patent granted on this application which would extend beyond the expiration dates of RE49,441 and RE47,793 has been reviewed and is accepted. The terminal disclaimer has been recorded.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
Claims
Functional Phrase #
Generic Placeholder with Linking Phrase
Function
Corresponding Structure or Algorithm in the Specification of the ‘479 Patent
27, 32
1
program instructions, executed by a processor in the terminal, cause the terminal to
obtain user data based on the reference signal, the first information and a physical layer cell identity (PCI) of a serving cell
It is unclear where structure or algorithm is disclosed for performing the claimed function.
30, 35
2
program instructions further cause the terminal to
obtain other user data based on the another reference signal, the first information and the virtual cell identity of the serving cell
It is unclear where structure or algorithm is disclosed for performing the claimed function.
31, 36
3
program instructions further cause the terminal to
perform a single point reception from the base station
See at least 5:35-44; 15:21-40; 16:65-17:64; Fig. 6
Table 1: Identification of § 112 ¶ (f) Claim Limitations
and Corresponding Structure
Because these claim limitations are interpreted under § 112 ¶ 6, they are
“construed to cover the corresponding structure … described in the specification and
equivalents thereof.” § 112 ¶ 6.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim limitation “program instructions further cause the terminal to obtain user data based on the reference signal, the first information and a physical layer cell identity (PCI) of a serving cell” invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. The disclosure of the ‘479 Patent does not discuss “user data” or any algorithms or structure describing program instructions for obtaining “user data” based on the three items: the reference signal, the first information and the virtual cell identity of the serving cell.
Therefore, claims 27-36 are indefinite and are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(e) the invention was described in (1) an application for patent, published under section 122(b), by another filed in the United States before the invention by the applicant for patent or (2) a patent granted on an application for patent by another filed in the United States before the invention by the applicant for patent, except that an international application filed under the treaty defined in section 351(a) shall have the effects for purposes of this subsection of an application filed in the United States only if the international application designated the United States and was published under Article 21(2) of such treaty in the English language.
Claims 27, 28, 32, 33, 37, 38 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(e) as being anticipated by U.S. Pub. No. 2011/0064159 to Ko et al. (“Ko”).
As per claim 27, Ko discloses a terminal, comprising:
a memory which stores program instructions, wherein the program instructions, executed by a processor in the terminal, cause the terminal to:
[0155] “If the embodiment according to the present invention is implemented by firmware or software, the embodiment of the present invention can be implemented by a type of a module, a procedure, or a function, which performs functions or operations described as above. A software code may be stored in a memory unit and then may be driven by a processor. The memory unit may be located inside or outside the processor to transmit and receive data to and from the processor through various means which are well known.” Figs. 9 and 10
receive, from a base station, downlink control information (DCI) including first information;
[0011] “Meanwhile, a downlink control channel can include a control signal that defines resource allocation and transport format in respect of a signal transmitted through a downlink data channel. In the 3GPP LTE (long term evolution) standard, the downlink control channel and the downlink data channel are referred to as a physical downlink control channel (PDCCH) and a physical downlink shared channel (PDSCH), respectively, and control information transmitted through the PDCCH is referred to as downlink control information (DCI).”
receive, from the base station, a reference signal; and
[0023] “Also, the method further comprises receiving a UE-specific reference signal for demodulating the downlink data for one or more of the first and second antenna ports.”
[0068] “In the 3GPP LTE system, three types of downlink reference signals are used. Namely, examples of the downlink reference signal include a cell-specific reference signal (having no relation with MBSFN transmission), an MBSFN reference signal related to MBSFN transmission, and a UE-specific reference signal.”
[0071] “The aforementioned UE-specific reference signal corresponds to a dedicated reference signal (DRS) or a precoded demodulation reference signal (DMRS). If the precoded DMRS is used, the reference signals equivalent to a spatial multiplexing rate are transmitted.”
obtain user data based on the reference signal, the first information and a physical layer cell identity (PCI) of a serving cell,
[0069] “The cell-specific reference signal is a reference signal based on a sequence generated using each cell ID as an initial value. For cell-specific reference signal transmission, antenna ports 0 to 3 can be used. Also, the MBSFN reference signal is used to acquire downlink channel information for MBSFN transmission, and is a reference signal transmitted through antenna port 4.”
[0070] “The UE-specific reference signal is supported for single antenna port transmission of a PDSCH, and can be transmitted through antenna port 5. The user equipment (UE) can be transferred from an upper layer (above MAC layer) whether the UE-specific reference signal can be used for PDSCH demodulation. The UE-specific reference signal enables beamforming of data transmission for a specific user equipment. For example, the base station can generate directivity transmission for a specific user equipment by using an array (one antenna port) of physical antennas, which are located near the base station. Signals from different physical antennas have phases appropriately set and can be joined together at the location of the user equipment. This directivity transmission is recognized by the user equipment as one antenna. Since a beam formed by beamforming suffers different channel responses between the base station and the user equipment, the UE-specific reference signal is required such that the user equipment normally demodulates beamformed data.”
[0072] “The UE-specific reference signal may be used as single layer beamforming (beamforming of rank 1 transmission). As described above, since the UE-specific reference signal is precoded by the same precoder as that applied to data on the PDSCH, a precoding matrix is transparent to the user equipment. In other words, in case of transmission based on the UE-specific reference signal, since an estimated channel includes a precoding weight value, single layer beamforming can be implemented without precoding information. DCI format 1 or DCI format 1A of the aforementioned DCI format, which is defined for single antenna port transmission and transmit diversity, can be used for the single layer beamforming.”
[0073] “Meanwhile, in the existing 3GPP LTE (Release 8) system, since only antenna port 5 is defined as an antenna port to which the UE-specific reference signal is transmitted, data transmission using cell-specific reference signals (antenna ports 0 to 3) is required if rank is more than 2. In other words, each user equipment can perform data demodulation by using channel information acquired through the cell-specific reference signal and precoding weight information acquired through a control channel.”
As best understood, Examiner is interpreting “user data” to include any data related to the user or user equipment (e.g., terminal).
wherein the reference signal is a dedicated reference signal for the terminal.
[0071]
Claims 32 and 37 recite substantially similar subject matter to claim 27; therefore, claims 32 and 37 are rejected on the same basis as claim 27.
As per claim 28, Ko discloses the terminal of claim 27, wherein the reference signal is a user equipment specific (UE-specific) reference signal.
[0023] “Also, the method further comprises receiving a UE-specific reference signal for demodulating the downlink data for one or more of the first and second antenna ports.”
Claims 33 and 38 recite substantially similar subject matter to claim 28; therefore, claims 33 and 38 are rejected on the same basis as claim 28.
Response to Arguments
Defective Reissue Declaration
The 251 rejection remains as Applicant wishes to hold in abeyance the filing of an appropriate oath/declaration pending an indication of allowable claims.
35 USC 112(f)
While the claims do not recite the word “means,” § 112(f) still applies.
Legal Standard for Determining if the Claim Language Invokes § 112 (f)
The test for determining if the claim language invokes § 112 (f) was set forth in Williamson v. Citrix Online, LLC, 792 F.3d 1339 (Fed. Cir. 2015). In the section of the Williamson opinion designated as en banc1, and with respect to claim terms that do not recite the word “means,” Williamson held:
When a claim term lacks the word “means,” the presumption can be overcome and § 112, para. 6 will apply if the challenger demonstrates that the claim term [1] fails to “recite sufficiently definite structure” or else [2] recites “function without reciting sufficient structure for performing that function.” Watts [v. XL Sys., Inc.], 232 F.3d [877] at 880.
Williamson, 792 F.3d at 1349 (en banc)(emphasis added; bracketed numbering added).2
Because “or else” is an idiom used to express alternatives3 and in light of the “or else” noted in the Williamson quotation above, Williamson essentially provides two distinct and alternative tests (collectively the “Williamson Invocation Tests” or “WIT”) for overcoming the presumption that § 112 ¶ 6 is not invoked when a phrase does not use the word “means.”
In summary, and in accordance with the WIT, when a claim term lacks the word “means,” the presumption to not invoke § 112 (f) can be overcome and § 112 (f) will apply if:
Williamson Invocation Test (1) (or “WIT-1”): the claim term fails to recite sufficiently definite structure; or
Williamson Invocation Test (2) (or “WIT-2”): the claim term recites function without reciting sufficient structure for performing that function.
The Examiner is relying on WIT-2 i.e. “or else recites function without reciting sufficient structure for performing that function.” Williamson, 792 F.3d at 1349 (citations and quotations omitted).
Because Applicant has only argued WIT-1 (the part of the invocation test that the Examiner is not using), and because the Examiner is relying solely on the second WIT (i.e. WIT-2), Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive.
Because Applicant’s arguments have not addressed WIT-2, Applicant’s arguments addressing WIT-1, no matter how meritorious, cannot be considered persuasive.
Applicant Uses Layperson’s Definition of “Sufficient Structure”
Additionally, Applicant argues that structure exists because the claim language expressly recites “memory and processor.” Applicant appears to be using a layperson’s definition of “sufficient structure” and not the Federal Circuit’s. The Examiner is using the Federal Circuit’s definition of “sufficient structure.” See e.g., TriMed, Inc. v. Stryker Corp., 514 F.3d 1256, 1259-60 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (“Sufficient structure exists when the claim language specifies the exact structure that performs the function in question without need to resort to other portions of the specification or extrinsic evidence for an adequate understanding of the structure.” [Emphasis added.]).
Application of WIT-2: Egenera, Inc. v. Cisco Sys., Inc
For example, the Federal Circuit recently used WIT-2 (although the court didn’t adapt the Examiner’s nomenclature of WIT-2) in Egenera, Inc. v. Cisco Sys., Inc., 972 F.3d 1367 (Fed. Cir. 2020).
In particular, the court looked at the phrase “logic to modify” when the patent owner argued that “logic" is structural because the “’logic to modify’ is part of a supposedly structural component.” Egenera, 972 F.3d at 1374.4 “On appeal, Egenera, pointing to its expert's explanation and dictionary definitions, argues that ‘logic’ is a common term of art meaning software, firmware, circuitry, or [a] combination thereof.’” Id.
The court disagreed with the patent owner since even if the patent owner’s argument was true, that’s not the test the court is using to determine if the presumption is overcome:
“The question is not whether a claim term recites any structure but whether it recites sufficient structure—a claim term is subject to § 112(f) if it recites ‘function without reciting sufficient structure for performing that function.’ [Emphasis in original.]”
Egenera, 972 F.3d at 1374 (quoting Williamson, 792 F.3d at 1348).
The court also addressed the argument that even if logic has some structure, this is not the question the court is addressing:
Egenera also argues that the ‘larger claim context’ indicates that ‘logic’ is structural because the "logic to modify" is part of a supposedly structural component—the ‘control node.’ But that is not enough. Mere inclusion of a limitation within a structure does not automatically render the limitation itself sufficiently structural. And, again, the question is not whether ‘logic" is utterly devoid of structure but whether the claim term recites sufficient structure to perform the claimed functions. [emphasis added.]
Egenera, 972 F.3d at 1374.
Applying Egenera to these claims, the question is not whether the claimed functional phrases recite any structure (such as a “memory and processor”) but whether the claimed phrases recite sufficient structure to perform all the claimed functions. The identified functional phrase is subject to § 112(f) if it recites function without reciting sufficient structure for performing the claimed function.
In summary, not only is Applicant improperly using a layperson’s definition of “sufficient structure,” Applicant’s remaining argument simply fails to meaningfully reckon with the Federal Circuit’s precedent, including Williamson’s en banc articulation of the legal standard and Egenera.
“Processor” in Applicant’s Specification
Examiner agrees that a processor is structure. However, after a review of the specification, Examiner finds no evidence that the term “processor” has achieved recognition as a term denoting sufficient structure for performing the identified recited functions. Egenera, 972 F.3d at 1374.
At best, the Examiner finds the specification shows that the identified claimed limitations are computer-implemented limitations that require a processor with special programming in order to perform the recited functions, and fails to show that the claimed processor by itself is sufficient structure for performing the claimed functions.
“For a computer-implemented means-plus-function claim limitation invoking 35 U.S.C. 112(f) the Federal Circuit has stated that "a microprocessor can serve as structure for a computer-implemented function only where the claimed function is ‘coextensive’ with a microprocessor itself." EON Corp. IP Holdings LLC v. AT&T Mobility LLC, 785 F.3d 616, 622, 114 USPQ2d 1711, 1714 (Fed. Cir. 2015), citing In re Katz Interactive Call Processing Patent Litigation, 639 F.3d 1303, 1316, 97 USPQ2d 1737, 1747 (Fed. Cir. 2011). "‘It is only in the rare circumstances where any general-purpose computer without any special programming can perform the function that an algorithm need not be disclosed.’" EON Corp., 785 F.3d at 621, 114 USPQ2 at 1714, quoting Ergo Licensing, LLC v. CareFusion 303, Inc., 673 F.3d 1361, 1365, 102 USPQ2d 1122, 1125 (Fed. Cir. 2012). "‘[S]pecial programming’ includes any functionality that is not ‘coextensive’ with a microprocessor or general purpose computer." EON Corp., 785 F.3d at 623, 114 USPQ2d at 1715 (citations omitted). "Examples of such coextensive functions are ‘receiving’ data, ‘storing’ data, and ‘processing’ data—the only three functions on which the Katz court vacated the district court’s decision and remanded for the district court to determine whether disclosure of a microprocessor was sufficient." 785 F.3d at 622, 114 USPQ2d at 1714. Thus, "[a] microprocessor or general purpose computer lends sufficient structure only to basic functions of a microprocessor. All other computer-implemented functions require disclosure of an algorithm." Id., 114 USPQ2d at 1714”
MPEP § 2181 II. B. (Emphasis added)
As such, the Examiner concludes that, to a person of ordinary skill in this particular art, the term “processor” does not denote sufficient structure for performing the claimed function. Because “processor” does not denote sufficient structure, the term is therefore a generic placeholder for “means.” As such, the identified limitations are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph because the claim limitations use a generic placeholder (i.e., “processor”) that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier.
Notification of Prior or Concurrent Proceedings
Applicant is reminded of the continuing obligation under 37 CFR 1.178(b), to timely apprise the Office of any prior or concurrent proceed-ing in which the ‘479 Patent is or was involved. These proceedings would include interferences, reissues, reexaminations, and litigation.
Information Material to Patentability
Applicant is further reminded of the continuing obligation under 37 CFR 1.56, to timely apprise the Office of any information which is mate-rial to patentability of the claims under consideration in this reissue appli-cation.
These obligations rest with each individual associated with the filing and prosecution of this application for reissue. See also MPEP §§ 1404, 1442.01 and 1442.04.
Future Correspondence
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the Examiner should be directed to C. Michelle Tarae whose telephone number is (571)272-6727. The Examiner can normally be reached on M-F 8:00-4:30.
If attempts to reach the Examiner by telephone unsuccessful, the Examiner’s supervisor, Andrew J. Fischer, can be reached on 571-272-6779.
Information regarding the status of reissue applications may be obtained from the USPTO’s “Patent Center.” Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov.
Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at (866) 217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call (800) 786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or (571) 272-1000.
Signed:
/C. Michelle Tarae/Reexamination Specialist, Art Unit 3992
Conferees:
/B. James Peikari/Reexamination Specialist, Art Unit 3992
/ANDREW J. FISCHER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3992
1 “Part II.C.1. of this opinion has been considered and decided by the court en banc.” Williamson, 792 F.3d at 1343, n1.
2 See also MPEP § 2181 I. quoting a very similar Williamson statement.
3 “’or’ 1 — used as a function word to indicate an alternative < coffee or tea>” Merriam-Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary, 10th Edition, Merriam-Webster Inc., Springfield, M.A., 1997; “’or else’ —used to say what another possibility is. He either thinks he can't do it or else he just isn't interested.” Merriam Webster’s Dictionary at Merriam-Webster.com, Merriam-Webster, www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/or else. Accessed 1 Feb. 2019.
4 Although the Egenera court does not say so explicitly, it is the Examiner’s position that the patent owner in Egenera was arguing WIT-1.