Opinion ID: 209874
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Semantic Antics

Text: Cat Tech argues that the article a in the phrase a spacing means that there need be only one space between plates that is narrower than a whole catalyst particle. Cat Tech's argument is little more than semantic antics. See Laitram Corp. v. Cambridge Wire Cloth Co., 863 F.2d 855, 857 (Fed.Cir.1988). While it is true that the indefinite article a has been construed to mean one or more, see Tate Access Floors, Inc. v. Maxcess Techs, Inc., 222 F.3d 958, 966 n. 4 (Fed.Cir.2000), the critical issue here is not whether a means one, but whether the term spacing refers to a pinch point or the entire gap between plates. Even if the claims were construed to require one spacing between plates, the entire length of that spacing must be narrower than a piece of whole catalyst particle. Indeed, during prosecution Cat Tech distinguished its invention from the prior art by stating that [t]he present invention is able to collect dust and chips because multiple channels are formed when the plates are pieced together. [5] Remarks Accompanying Preliminary Amendment 3 (Aug. 20, 2001) (emphasis added). Clearly, a channel is a space of some length rather than a pinch point. See, e.g., The Am. Heritage Dictionary of the English Language 311 (4th ed. 2000) (A channel is a trench, furrow or groove.). As the district court correctly concluded, the spacing element of the '660 patent requires an inter-plate spacing that is smaller than the width of a whole catalyst particle. See Summary Judgment Decision, slip op. at 9. Because TubeMaster's accused method does not meet this spacing limitation, the district court properly granted TubeMaster's motion for summary judgment of non-infringement as to configuration 3.