Opinion ID: 783283
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Protrusion

Text: 46 The claims of the '363 patent family require a protrusion on one of said top or bottom surfaces of the claimed block. See, e.g., '183 patent, col. 16, ll. 20-33 (emphasis added). The district court construed protrusion to include the limitation of having a central narrow portion. This was error. 47 The ordinary meaning of the claim term protrusion is something that protrudes. See Webster's Third New International Dictionary 1826. The district court relied on the written description, which states that, [t]he central narrow portion in protrusion 26 (FIGS 1-6) allows for orientation of the blocks to provide inner curving and outer curving walls by the aligned seating and the relative rotation of the protrusion 26 within, and in relationship to, any block inset 22A or 22B, '183 patent, col. 5, ll. 9-13, to conclude that this statement attaches the characteristic of having a central narrow portion to the term protrusion. Anchor, 252 F.Supp.2d at 848. Contrary to the district court's claim construction, the written description does not describe with reasonable clarity, deliberateness, and precision, In re Paulsen, 30 F.3d 1475, 1480 (Fed.Cir.1994), that protrusion requires a central narrow portion. Indeed, the many uses of the term in the written description are consistent with the ordinary meaning of protrusion, one encompassing protrusions of any number of shapes. See, e.g., '363 patent, col. 4, ll. 55-56 (While the protrusions may take any number of shapes, they preferably have a kidney or dogbone shape. (emphases added)). The general rule, of course, is that claims of a patent are not limited to a preferred embodiment, unless by their own language. See, e.g., Va. Panel Corp. v. MAC Panel Co., 133 F.3d 860, 866 (Fed.Cir.1997) ([I]t is well settled that device claims are not limited to devices which operate precisely as the embodiments described in detail in the patent.). There is nothing in this case that warrants departing from the general rule. 48 Moreover, it is axiomatic that a claim construction that excludes a preferred embodiment such as the circular protrusions disclosed in Figure 3A is rarely, if ever correct and would require highly persuasive evidentiary support. Vitronics, 90 F.3d at 1583; see, e.g., '363 patent, fig. 3A. Contrary to the district court's conclusion, varied use of a disputed term in the written description attests to the breadth of a term rather than providing a limiting definition. See, e.g., Enercon GmbH v. Int'l Trade Comm'n, 151 F.3d 1376, 1385 (Fed.Cir.1998) (refusing to limit a term used interchangeably in the written description to only one of the uses of the term). That the term protrusion is used at various points in the written description to refer to protrusions [that] may take any number of shapes is simply not a special and particular definition created by the patent applicant, Renishaw PLC v. Marposs Societa' per Azioni, 158 F.3d 1243, 1249 (Fed.Cir.1998), and is thus an insufficient reason to limit the scope of the claim. Furthermore, the parties point to nothing in the prosecution history compelling us to deviate from the ordinary meaning of protrusion. Accordingly, we hold that the proper construction of protrusion is something that protrudes.