Opinion ID: 626570
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Construction of Slots and Openings

Text: AFT also disputes the district court's construction of the terms slots and openings as being limited to openings or slots with widths less than 0.254 mm. Advanced Fiber, 751 F.Supp.2d at 364. The parties agree that, should we vacate the judgment of noninfringement, the construction of these terms is relevant on remand to the extent of J & L's potential infringement and thus the amount of potential damages owed by J & L. The parties also agree with the district court that these two terms should be construed together. AFT asserts that the court's construction is wrong because the claims themselves do not contain any size limitation. AFT points out that the specification encompasses apertures of all shapes and sizes and expressly discloses a screening medium with a slot size of 0.5 mm. Finally, AFT contends that the prosecution history does not contradict the claims or specification. J & L asserts that the district court correctly limited these claim terms on account of AFT's prosecution history disclaimer. According to J & L, AFT structurally differentiated its claims from Gillespie on the basis of slot size. In the face of such disclaimer, J & L argues, the district court was correct to construe these terms more narrowly than the specification would otherwise suggest. We agree with J & L. As the district court correctly concluded, AFT distinguished Gillespie from the pending claims based on slot size: the Gillespie screen slots are 0.030 inches, that is, 0.762 mm. The slots of Gillespie are over three times the size of the slot width of the present invention. J.A. 324. This statement, urged in support of patentability, is so clear as to show reasonable clarity and deliberateness and so unmistakable as to be unambiguous evidence of disclaimer. Omega, 334 F.3d at 1325. The district court properly took AFT at its word and construed the claimed slots and openings as having widths less than one-third of 0.762 mm, that is, less than 0.254 mm. Accordingly, we perceive no error in the district court's construction of slots and openings.