Opinion ID: 764877
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Claim Construction & Literal Infringement of Independent Claims 1 and 8

Text: 44 Finnigan argues that the ALJ erred in construing the term unstable in claims 1 and 8 with reference to the stability diagram disclosed in the '884 patent. Finnigan asserts that the specification makes clear that an unstable ion is any ion that escapes the quadrupole field, i.e., any ion whose trajectory exceeds the trapping space. Finnigan also asserts that it was improper for the ALJ to limit the claims to the disclosed embodiment. The Commission responds that the specification is clear that the term unstable refers to an ion that maps outside of the stability diagram. The Commission also asserts that, because the specification does not disclose the resonance ejection technique, the claims may not be interpreted to encompass it without running afoul of the written description and enablement requirements of 35 U.S.C. § 112, p 1. Both parties also argue that the prosecution history and evidence extrinsic to the patent support their respective positions. 45 When construing a claim, a court principally consults the evidence intrinsic to the patent, viz., the claims themselves, the written description portion of the specification, and the prosecution history. See Vitronics Corp. v. Conceptronic, Inc., 90 F.3d 1576, 1582-83, 39 USPQ2d 1573, 1576-77 (Fed.Cir.1996). Reference to this evidence, particularly the specification, is more than sufficient to resolve the claim construction issue presented here. The specification explicitly defines stable ions as those that map within the Mathieu stability diagram and are therefore trapped by the quadrupole field, and unstable ions as those that do not. We have already quoted the relevant portion of the specification above: 46 If [the] scanning parameters combine to map inside the stability envelope[,] then the given particle has a stable trajectory in the defined field .... Such particles can be thought of as trapped by the field. If for a particle m/e, U, V, r subo and combine to map outside the stability envelop on the stability diagram, then the given particle has an unstable trajectory in the defined field .... Such particles can be thought of as escaping the field and are consequently considered untrappable. 47 '884 patent, col. 3, l. 56 to col. 4, l. 2 (emphasis added). 48 A patentee may be his or her own lexicographer. See, e.g., Vitronics, 90 F.3d at 1582, 39 USPQ2d at 1576. The inventors therefore could have defined an unstable ion in the specification as one that is ejected from the quadrupole field, but they did not do so. In fact, the discussion of the prior art in the specification, which is similar in operation to the Bruker device inasmuch as it involves ejection of ions via the application of voltages to the end caps of the trap, belies Finnigan's contention that all ejected ions are necessarily unstable ions. See '884 patent, col. 2., ll. 5-8 (describing the prior art: by applying a voltage pulse between the end caps, the trapped stable ions are ejected out of the storage region to a detector.) (emphasis added). 49 Thus, we agree with the Commission that the specification requires the ALJ's claim construction--i.e., that the claim term unstable refers to ions that are unstable from the perspective of the disclosed Mathieu stability diagram. 6 We have considered the other evidence cited to us by the parties--specifically other portions of the specification, the prosecution history, and certain extrinsic evidence--but find such evidence vague and unhelpful as to the meaning of the term unstable. Because Finnigan does not contest that there is no infringement if the ALJ's claim construction is adopted by this court, we affirm the ALJ's determination of noninfringement of independent claims 1 and 8 and all claims that are dependent thereupon. See Wahpeton Canvas Co., Inc. v. Frontier, Inc., 870 F.2d 1546, 1553, 10 USPQ2d 1201, 1208 (Fed.Cir.1989) (It is axiomatic that dependent claims cannot be found infringed unless the claims from which they depend have been found to have been infringed.).