Opinion ID: 208578
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Prosecution History Disclaimer

Text: Ecolab first argues that, during prosecution, FMC disclaimed compositions containing multiple antimicrobial agents. Thus, because Inspexx contains three antimicrobial agents, Ecolab argues that Inspexx does not infringe the '676 patent as a matter of law. Whether prosecution history disclaimer applies is a legal question this court reviews de novo. Cybor Corp. v. FAS Techs., 138 F.3d 1448, 1456 (Fed.Cir. 1998) (en banc). As this court has noted, since, by distinguishing the claimed invention over the prior art, an applicant is indicating what the claims do not cover, he is by implication surrendering such protection. Ekchian v. Home Depot, Inc., 104 F.3d 1299, 1304 (Fed.Cir.1997). However, we will find that the applicant disclaimed protection during prosecution only if the allegedly disclaiming statements constitute a clear and unmistakable surrender of subject matter. Bayer AG v. Elan Pharm. Research Corp., 212 F.3d 1241, 1251 (Fed.Cir.2000). Even if an isolated statement appears to disclaim subject matter, the prosecution history as a whole may demonstrate that the patentee committed no clear and unmistakable disclaimer. Elbex Video, Ltd. v. Sensormatic Elecs. Corp., 508 F.3d 1366, 1372-73 (Fed.Cir. 2007). FMC contends the district court did not err when it declined to apply prosecution history disclaimer because its prosecution statements cannot reasonably be interpreted as disclaimers when they are properly read in the context of the entire patent disclosure and prosecution history. In addition, FMC argues that because the '676 patent claims cover the use of products that consist essentially of PAA, '676 Patent col.10 ll. 15-51, the district court properly determined that the claims encompass products that contain PAA in combination with other antimicrobial agents. We agree with FMC. In the first office action issued by the United States Patent and Trademark Office, the Examiner rejected all claims as anticipated by U.S. Patent No. 5,208,057 (the Greenley patent) and as obvious in light of the combination of the Greenley and Oakes patents. FMC responded to those rejections by arguing, inter alia, that its invention uses sanitizing solutions containing PAA as the only antimicrobial agent. In particular, FMC stated: The peracetic acid is the sole antimicrobial agent in the sanitizing solution. Amendment and Remarks at 2, U.S. Patent Appl. Ser. No. 08/134,995 (Oct. 6, 1994) (emphasis added). To distinguish the Greenley patent, FMC stated: Greenley et al. do not teach the use of peracetic acid alone as a sanitizer. Id. at 3 (emphasis added). To distinguish the Oakes patent, FMC stated: Oakes et al. appears to be strongly advocating and teaching the use of mixtures of biocides, not the use of a single biocide.  Id. at 3 (emphasis added). In response to those statements, the Examiner noted that the claims are directed to the use of a composition which consists essentially of PAA and are thus not limited to compositions containing PAA as the sole antimicrobial agent. Examiner's Action at 2, U.S. Patent Appl. Ser. No. 08/134,995 (Mar. 1, 1995) ([I]t should be noted that the terminology `consisting essentially' does not mean that Applicants' sanitizing solution is consisted `solely' of a peracetic acid solution.). Following the Examiner's clarification, FMC never repeated the allegedly disclaiming statements and instead offered alternative reasons to overcome the Greenley and Oakes prior art. The Examiner eventually allowed the claims over the cited prior art, without any change to the claims' consists essentially of language. For these reasons, a reasonable reader of this prosecution history could conclude that FMC's initial statements that PAA is the sole antimicrobial agent used in its claimed method were hyperbolic or erroneous, that the Examiner corrected FMC's error in the following communication, that FMC recognized its error and never again repeated or relied upon the erroneous rationale, and that the claims were allowed for reasons independent of the allegedly disclaiming statements. Thus, when FMC's statements are considered in the context of the prosecution history as a whole, they simply are not clear and unmistakable enough to invoke the doctrine of prosecution history disclaimer. Ecolab argues that FMC cannot rely on the claims' consists essentially of language because the '676 patent disclosure and prosecution history clearly altered the meaning of that language. While consisting essentially of usually signals that the invention necessarily includes the listed ingredients and is open to unlisted ingredients that do not materially affect the basic and novel properties of the invention, PPG Indus. v. Guardian Indus. Corp., 156 F.3d 1351, 1354 (Fed.Cir. 1998), Ecolab correctly notes that a patentee can alter that typical meaning, see id. at 1355 (stating that a patent applicant could have defined the scope of the phrase `consisting essentially of for purposes of its patent by making clear in its specification what it regarded as constituting a material change in the basic and novel characteristics of the invention'); see also Water Techs. Corp. v. Calco, Ltd., 850 F.2d 660, 666 (Fed.Cir.1988) (looking to the prosecution history to determine if a specified ingredient was excluded from a consisting essentially of claim). Specifically, Ecolab argues that the '676 patent clearly limits the claim scope to compositions containing PAA as the sole antimicrobial agent because all the examples in the '676 patent use PAA as the only antimicrobial agent. We find that argument unpersuasive. The patent examples describe compositions that contain agents other than PAA, such as hydrogen peroxide, acetic acid, or sulfuric acid. See, e.g., '676 Patent col.2 ll. 27-31, col.4 ll. 13-14, col.5 ll. 13-14. Although the '676 patent does not explicitly identify hydrogen peroxide, acetic acid, or sulfuric acid as an antimicrobial agent, evidence of record indicates that an ordinarily skilled artisan reading the patent would understand that those components are considered antimicrobial agents. See J.A. at 6051 (testimony describing hydrogen peroxide as an antimicrobial); U.S. Patent No. 3,934,044 col.2 ll. 46-55 (filed Dec. 6, 1974) (describing the antibacterial effect of acetic acid on a meat surface); U.S. Patent No. 5,436,008 col.6 ll. 20-34 (filed Aug. 5, 1993) (describing the antimicrobial character of sulfur compounds such as sulfuric acid). Thus, the '676 patent disclosure does not limit the claims to the use of compositions containing PAA as the sole antimicrobial agent; it covers the use of compositions consisting essentially of PAA. Because FMC has neither altered the typical meaning of consists essentially of nor clearly disclaimed compositions containing multiple antimicrobial agents, the district court did not err when it denied Ecolab's JMOL motion.