A value does not "represent" an "amount of time" when other factors — unrelated to that value — may cause delay

In re Rambus, __ F.3d __ (Fed. Cir. June 4, 2014) (Rader, Moore, REYNA) (PTO) (2 of 5 stars)

Federal Circuit reverses PTAB's anticipation decision in an inter partes reexamination, in which the patent is expired so that normal claim construction rules apply. The prior art did not disclose "a value that is representative of an amount of time" after a computer memory "outputs [a] first amount of data." Rather, its parameter determines whether data is sent via dedicated or multiplexed lines, so it could not "represent" an "amount of time" because additional factors can affect the "amount of time" the data is delayed when switching from dedicated to multiplexed lines. Merely affecting the amount of time is not representing the amount of time.