Opinion ID: 2653549
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Preferred Embodiments and Dependent Claims

Text: Other aspects of the patents raise further doubt of any express intent to redefine KARI in the limited way adopted by the district court. As above, the patents specifically list “Methanococcus maripaludis . . . SEQ ID NO: 183” as a source organism for the preferred KARI. ’188 patent at col. 7 ll. 35–47. Moreover, dependent claim 15 of the ’188 patent claims that KARI. ’188 Patent col. 336 ll. 33–36. Butamax contends that it would be wrong to conclude that KARI from this organism are NADPH-dependent, pointing to evidence that at least some Methanococcus KARI are “able to utilize NADH as well as NADPH” and have “broad specificity for NADPH and NADH.” Further, Butamax notes that “NADH sup- ported 60% of the methanococcal activity obtained with NADPH.” See R. Xing & W. Whitman, Characterization of Enzymes of the Branched-Chain Amino Acid Biosynthetic Pathway in Methanococcus spp, 173(6) J. Bacteriology 2086–92 (1991) (“Xing”). The district court discounted Xing because it provided no references or data to support these findings. Opinion at  (noting that Xing “included a single conclusory sentence with no data or other literature references to support it”). However, Xing’s accuracy is not in dispute. Indeed, Gevo’s 2007 Pat. App. No. 61/016,483 cites to Xing for this very proposition. Gevo does note that the patents identify the KARI of Methanococcus maripaludis while 18 BUTAMAX(TM) ADVANCED BIOFUELS v. GEVO, INC. Xing examined the KARI of Methanococcus aeolicus, a different species of Methanococcus. However, there is no genuine dispute that Methanococcus maripaludis exhibits similar characteristics. See Appellant’s Reply Br. 9. The district court’s claim construction, without justification, excludes a preferred embodiment, which in this case also is the subject of dependent claim 15, and this court “normally do[es] not interpret claim terms in a way that excludes embodiments disclosed in the specification.” Oatey Co. v. IPS Corp., 514 F.3d 1271, 1276 (Fed. Cir. 2008).