Opinion ID: 788312
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: conclusion

Text: 55 As described in detail above, Bard clearly defined the plug in claim 20 as having pleats in both the specification and the prosecution history. Accordingly, we affirm the district court's claim construction requiring pre-formed pleats. Claim construction order, 102 F.Supp.2d at 217. Because an analysis of the intrinsic record suffices to support this construction, we do not consider, in the alternative, whether the district court properly construed claim 20 as containing means-plus-function limitations requiring pre-formed pleats even though claim 20 did not include the words means for or similar language. 6 We thus need not decide whether the presumption against such a conclusion is overcome by determining whether claim 20, drawn to structure, fails to describe specific structure. We merely note that the district court's opinion contains extensive and careful reasoning to support such a construction. 56 Bard does not dispute that the district court's judgment of non-infringement must be affirmed if this Court affirms the district court's construction of claim 20. Accordingly, we affirm the district court's judgment of non-infringement of claim 20. 57 Accordingly, the judgment of the district court is 58 AFFIRMED.