Opinion ID: 211104
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Consisting of

Text: 54 First, EEI alleges that the patentee's use of consisting of limits the scope of the '937 patent to exclude products performing only the recited steps of the patent and nothing else. EEI contends that the district court erred by allowing the accused process's suspension medium to include MIBK, a non-alcohol, in spite of the limitation that the suspending medium consist of water or a water-alcohol mixture. 55 Transitional phrases, such as comprising, consisting of, and consisting essentially of, are terms of art in patent law that define the scope of the claim with respect to what unrecited additional components or steps, if any, are excluded from the scope of the claim. MPEP § 2111.03; accord Vehicular Techs. Corp., 212 F.3d at 1382-83. The phrase consisting of signifies restriction and exclusion of unrecited steps or components. MPEP § 2111.03. Although consisting of is a term of restriction, the restriction is not absolute. The Patent Board of Appeals has interpreted consisting of to close[ ] the claim to the inclusion of materials other than those recited except for impurities ordinarily associated therewith. Ex parte Davis, 80 U.S.P.Q. 448, 450 (Pat. Office Bd.App.1948); see also Bethell v. Koch, 57 C.C.P.A. 1233, 427 F.2d 1372, 1373-74 (1970) (noting the parties' concession of a similar meaning of consisting of). 56 We have explained that consisting of does not exclude additional components or steps that are unrelated to the invention. See Norian Corp. v. Stryker Corp., 363 F.3d 1321, 1331-32 (Fed.Cir.2004). In Norian Corp., the District Court for the Northern District of California found as a matter of law that a product containing an unrecited element did not infringe U.S. Patent No. 6,002,065 (the '065 patent) because the transitional phrase consisting of excluded the additional element from the protection of the patent. Id. at 1331. Specifically, the '065 patent taught a kit containing specified chemicals; the infringing kit contained all the recited elements of the '065 patent, but added one element unrelated to the invention disclosed in the '065 patent—a spatula. Id. The district court held that adding the spatula to an otherwise infringing product avoided infringement of the '065 patent. 57 On appeal, we reversed the district court's holding and explained, 58 Consisting of is a term of patent convention meaning that the claimed invention contains only what is expressly set forth in the claim. However, while consisting of limits the claimed invention, it does not limit aspects unrelated to the invention. It is thus necessary to determine what is limited by the consisting of phrase. 59 Id. at 1331-32 (citation omitted). We held that the invention disclosed in the '065 patent was directed to a kit containing specified chemicals, and although the claims explicitly recited that no other chemical could be included in the composition, a competitor could not avoid infringement by adding a component unrelated to the invention. Id. 60 Similarly, impurities that a person of ordinary skill in the relevant art would ordinarily associate with a component on the consisting of list do not exclude the accused product or process from infringement. EEI contends that MIBK is not an impurity because it was purposely added to the alcohol to denature it. However, the intentional addition of a component does not change its status as an impurity ordinarily associated therewith. See Davis, 80 U.S.P.Q. at 450. 61 MIBK is a common impurity in industrial alcohols in order to prevent a liquor tax from being applied. If, however, MIBK had been added to adjust the stability of the suspending medium or prevent agglomeration of polymer, it may not have been an impurity and therefore EEI would most likely not infringe. Thus, impurities normally associated with the component of a claimed invention are implicitly adopted by the ordinary meaning of the components themselves. 5 See Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1312-13 (The ordinary and customary meaning of a claim term is the meaning that the term would have to a person of ordinary skill in the art ....). 62 The district court found as a matter of fact that Alfol-2 consisted of water and alcohol and that any non-alcohol and non-water components, such as MIBK, were impurities. This conclusion was based on the testimony of EEI's expert, who acknowledged that the small amounts of ammonia and heptane in the suspension were impurities and was impeached by prior testimony indicating MIBK was also an impurity. The court's findings were based on the testimony of persons of ordinary skill in the art who testified that MIBK has little to no effect on the present invention and is normally associated with industrial alcohols to reduce tax liability. Accordingly, there was substantial evidence to support the district court's findings that the MIBK and the other non-alcohol/non-water components were impurities, and the district court did not clearly err by finding that Alfol-2 met the claim limitations of the suspending medium. 63