Holding that after initial examination the claim in suit “[did] not necessarily require” that a surgical device be “pleated” but that arguments made during reexamination constituted a “clear disclaimer of scope” requiring “pleating”
Holding the Board may not indefinitely stay an ex parte reexamination in light of parallel district court litigation via the "special dispatch" standard
Noting that "explicit arguments made [by the applicant] during prosecution" are significant and that "by distinguishing the claimed invention over the prior art, an applicant is indicating what the claims do not cover"