his portion of the claim limitation is a reference back to the previously claimed term. Additionally, the use of “said” to refer back to the same claim term adopts the grammatical number (plural or singular) of the original claim term.The Federal Circuit reasoned based on prior precedent that claim construction of this type must take into consideration subsequent references to the initial noun in order to determine whether the claim requires one item performing all recited functions or any one of multiple items performing any one of multiple functions as long as all functions are performed. For example, in Varma, the court reasoned that “a statistical analysis request corresponding to two or more selected investments” is “claim language that introduces a claim element using an indefinite article and further defines the element with subsequently recited functionality, a structure that effectively requires the element be capable of performing all the recited functionality.” In re Varma, 816 F.3d 1352, 1362-63 (Fed. Cir. 2016). The Court noted in Varma, “[f]or a dog owner to have ‘a dog that rolls over and fetches sticks,’ it does not suffice that he have two dogs, each able to perform just one of the tasks.” 816 F.3d at 1363.Thus, a microprocessor, where said microprocessor is capable of performing certain functions, unless otherwise indicated by the specification, claims, or prosecution history, means one or more microprocessors, at least one of which can perform all recited functions.

164 at 8 (N.D. Tex. December 4, 2018). [2] See InvestPic LLC v. Algorithmics (US) Inc., et al., Case No. 1:10-cv-1028-RGA. [3] In re Varma, 816 F.3d 1352, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2016). [4] Corrected Brief for Appellee-Director of the United States Patent & Trademark Office in Fed. Cir.