Result Accordingly, there is no reason to deviate fromthe plain conditional meaning of the disputed

language: the pass transistors must benonconductive for the sense amplifier to function
Result Construction of the disputed language is unnecessaryhere, as theclaim scope is clear. The
plain meaning of in response to conveys astimulus and aneffect. Read incontext of theclaims and
specification, that relationship is unchanged: the plain meaning of in response to would be
understoodto mean that the pass transistors react to the stimulus of the sense enable signal. Because
the intrinsic evidence does not mandate a specialized definition of inresponse to, the Court declines
to depart from its plain and ordinary meaning.
Result Thus, the constructionfunction as intended is superfluous because the intendedfunction is
clearly stated in the claim. The ordinary meaning of the sense enable signalread in the context of
the patentis clear and the specification is consistent with that meaning. Accordingly, the Court
declines to depart from the ordinary meaning of sense enable signal.
Result Thus, claiming events that occur within a narrow, specified window of time (a single clock
cycle) and at about thesame time issufficientlydefinite under 112(b). The language at about the
sametime is properly construed as: After a differential data signal isgenerated but beforethe sense
enable signal is deasserted, occurring within a single clock cycle.
Result - Thus, the plain meaning of only in response to to a POSITA, read in the context of the claim
language, is that datastorage (effect) isexclusively in response to theamplifieddata signal (stimulus).
Because both partiesagree that this is themeaning of the phrase, any further construction would be
redundant. The plain andordinary meaning of storing data corresponding to the amplified data signal
only in response to the amplified data signal/latching the data in response to only the amplified data
signal applies.