[3] The Court used the principal to prevent the patentee from arguing an interpretation of "sputter deposited dielectric" that would allow it to continue with a patent infringement suit, because the argument was inconsistent with its position during prosecution.
[5] Another Federal Circuit case using the term "disclaimer" is Standard Oil Co. v. American Cyanamid Co.[6] In Standard Oil, the Court stated that "the prosecution history (or file wrapper) limits the interpretation of claims so as to exclude any interpretation that may have been disclaimed or disavowed during prosecution in order to obtain claim allowance.
Unlike prosecution history estoppel, where claim amendments and arguments limit a patentee's ability to apply the doctrine of equivalents, prosecution disclaimer limits the literal scope of the claims and results from applicant argument, rather than amendments.
In Loctite Corp. v. Ultraseal Ltd, the judge said that "interpreting claims in view of the prosecution history applies as a preliminary step in determining literal infringement.
Prosecution history estoppel applies as a limitation to the doctrine of equivalents after the claims have been properly interpreted and no literal infringement is found".