Opinion ID: 208013
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Malleable Wires and Resilient Wires Are Mutually Exclusive

Text: Finally, Edwards argues that malleable wires, even if required, may still display some resilience. According to Edwards, the court erred by rejecting the plain meaning of malleable to hold that the inventors' alleged definition in the specification should apply. Edwards asserts that the inventor acting as his own lexicographer applies only to words the inventor actually used in the claims. Further, Edwards argues, the inventors gave their alleged definition only in the context of a preferred embodiment, so it does not limit the definition of malleable in all contexts in the specification. Finally, according to Edwards, even under the alleged definition in the specification, a wire that exhibits some resilience but requires balloon expansion to expand fully is malleable. Cook and Gore respond that, as used in the specification, malleable wires and resilient wires are mutually exclusive. According to Appellees, the inventors disclaimed the idea that resilient wires can also be malleable. Appellees also argue that the inventors defined malleable wires in the specification as not resilient to any substantial extent, and they criticized known self-expanding wires. According to Appellees, a court must follow a patentee's definition irrespective of where in the specification it appears. Further, Appellees argue that, during prosecution, the inventors told the Patent Office that malleable and self-expanding materials were mutually exclusive. We agree with Appellees that, in the context of the specification, malleable wires and resilient wires are mutually exclusive. As the court correctly held, the specification defines malleable to exclude any substantial resilience, and that definition overrides any ordinary meaning of the word malleable that might allow for substantial resilience. The specification states that the wires are maleable [sic] and may be bent into any desired shape, ie [sic] they are not resilient to any substantial extent so that they have to be physically expanded into contact with the aorta rather than expanding by virtue of their own resilience. '458 patent col.5 ll.32-36. The district court correctly reasoned that such a definition precluded any substantial resilience. See Order Granting Cook Summary Judgment, 2008 WL 744825, at , 2008 U.S. Dist. Lexis 21248, at -13; Order Granting Gore Summary Judgment, 2008 WL 4279666, at , 2008 U.S. Dist. Lexis 70130, at -11. Contrary to Edwards' argument, the location within the specification in which the definition appears is irrelevant. See Boss Control, Inc. v. Bombardier Inc., 410 F.3d 1372, 1378 (Fed.Cir.2005) (following inventors' definition, even though it appeared in connection with the description of a preferred embodiment). As the court correctly reasoned, the specification's use of i.e. signals an intent to define the word to which it refers, malleable, and that definition was not limited to the embodiment being discussed. Furthermore, as discussed in part 3, supra, the inventors disclaimed the idea that resilient wires could be used. As Edwards points out, we do not ordinarily construe words that are not in claims. See generally CCS Fitness, 288 F.3d at 1366 ([T]he claim term will not receive its ordinary meaning if the patentee acted as his own lexicographer and clearly set forth a definition of the disputed claim term in either the specification or prosecution history. (emphases added)). However, in this case, the court correctly looked to the words used in the specification, including the word malleable, to provide an initial construction. After the court provided that construction, the parties disputed the definition of the word malleable in the claim construction, but that definition was elucidated by the specification. Thus, the court was similarly correct to look to the specification to clarify its initial construction. We therefore agree with the district court that the graft terms must include wires that are malleable, and that the term malleable in the context of the patents in suit precludes the use of only substantially resilient wires.