Pro se appellant loses at CAFC on prosecution history estoppel
Concerning prosecution history estoppel:
During prosecution, in response to a prior art rejection, Ottah emphasized that the patentability of the ’840 patent’s claim was based on the removable nature of the mount. He cannot now, under the doctrine of equivalents, seek to broaden the scope of his claim to include mounts that are fixed as well as those that are removable. See Duramed Pharm., Inc. v. Paddock Labs., Inc., 644 F.3d 1376, 1380 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (“[T]he doctrine of prosecution history estoppel prevents a patent owner from recapturing through the doctrine of equivalents subject matter surrendered to acquire the patent.”). Ottah cannot prevail under the doctrine of equivalents.