Opinion ID: 210676
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Transverse holes

Text: 26 The district court defined transverse holes as holes across the butt portion of the nail. Stryker argues that this claim term should be limited to holes that are perpendicular to the nail shaft, excluding from the claim scope holes that are tilted so that one end of the hole is vertically offset from the other end. Again, this argument is an improper attempt to read a feature of the preferred embodiment into the claims as a limitation. 27 Stryker's argument for a narrow reading of transverse stems from the fact that [e]very description of the transverse holes in the '444 patent contemplates a perpendicular hole. This is a correct characterization of the patent: every figure which illustrates the holes shows them going perpendicularly through the shaft, and the written description characterizes the holes in Figure 2 as perpendicular to the portion of the nail axis at the butt portion 14 of the nail. '444 patent col.2 ll.58-59. However, Figure 2 and the text characterizing it simply discloses a single, preferred embodiment of the invention. [A]lthough the specification often describes very specific embodiments of the invention, we have repeatedly warned against confining the claims to those embodiments. Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1323; see also Comark, 156 F.3d at 1186-87. 28 The plain meaning of Claim 1 covers more than the particular embodiment shown in the figures. While the disclosed embodiment possesses perpendicular holes, the claim language covers all transverse holes—a word that does not necessarily imply right angles. Moreover, the patentees' description of their preferred embodiment itself implies a difference between the words perpendicular and transverse. The written description states that Figure 2 illustrates a plurality of transverse holes, each of which is . . . perpendicular to the portion of the nail axis at the butt portion 14 of the nail. '444 patent col.2 ll.56-59. This implies that a transverse hole need not be perpendicular—if it were, the patentee would not have needed to clarify that these holes, in addition to being transverse, were perpendicular to the nail axis. Just as in Phillips, where the asserted claim mentioned steel baffles and hence strongly implie[d] that the term 'baffles' does not inherently mean objects made of steel, 415 F.3d at 1314, this usage of language is strong evidence that the patentee considered transverse and perpendicular to have distinctly different meanings. 29 The intrinsic evidence of the specification therefore suggests that the patentees knew how to restrict their claim coverage to holes passing through at right angles. They could have used the word perpendicular, as they did in discussing their preferred embodiment. Instead, they chose a different term that implies a broader scope. The intrinsic evidence does not indicate that one of skill in the art would believe the patentees meant perpendicular when they said transverse. There is very little indication that the patentees considered perpendicularlity important to their invention. The patentees tout the virtue of their preferred hole orientation only once, noting that [t]he predictability of fracture modes makes the orientation of holes in the illustrated embodiment suitable in most cases.  '444 patent col.4 ll.65-67 (emphasis added). Far from demonstrating that the patentee[s] . . . intend[ed] for the claims and the embodiments in the specification to be strictly coextensive with respect to this limitation, Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1323, this statement admits that the disclosed perpendicular hole orientation may not always be ideal. See '444 patent col.5 ll.2-4 (suggesting that, if holes are not ideally situated, the surgeon may slightly rotate the nail to achieve a more favorable alignment). Nowhere in the specification or the prosecution history do the patentees criticize or distinguish tilted, non-perpendicular holes. 30 The dissent states that the specification language which discloses only perpendicular holes should be determinative of the claim scope. In particular, it points to three instances in the written description where transverse holes are described as perpendicular. Dissent at 812-13 (citing '444 patent col. 2 ll.57-59; col.3 ll.1-3; col.3 ll.9-11). All three of these instances appear in a textual description of the patent's Figure 2, indicating that the holes depicted in that figure are perpendicular to the nail axis. Thus, while the dissent emphasizes the fact that there are three references to perpendicular holes in the specification, its argument is ultimately premised on characteristics which the patentee has attributed to a single preferred embodiment. In the context of this patent, such an argument must be contradicted by our repeated statements that limitations from the specification are not to be read into the claims. Comark, 156 F.3d at 1186; see also id. at 1187 ([T]he language that [the defendant] argues should limit claim 1 is clearly found in the . . . patent's description of the preferred embodiment. It is precisely against this type of claim construction that our prior case law counsels.). 31 By highlighting the specification phrase each of which is defined and by describing that phrase as important [1], Dissent at 814, the dissent appears to suggest that the patentee has in some sense imposed a limiting definition upon the word transverse. But the use of the word defined here does not imply a lexicographic definition, especially not a definition of transverse to mean perpendicular. Instead, the statement that the holes of the cited embodiment are defined on . . . an axis merely introduces the useful abstract concept of a hole axis, later employed in the claims to describe the orientation of the holes with respect to each other. See '444 patent, Claim 1, col.5 ll.53-54 (the three hole axes [are] angularly offset from each other . . .). The claims repeatedly echo this form of usage of the word define. See, e.g., '444 patent Claim 1, col.5 ll.51-53 (the butt portion . . . defining a plurality of at least three transverse holes, each defining a hole axis (emphasis added)); Claim 2, col.5 ll.57-58 (the curved shank includes a curved portion defining a curved central axis); Claim 3, col.5 ll.60-61 (the butt portion defines a central axis). If the word define were always to be an important signifier of limitation, this claim language would indicate that the butt portion has been defined to be transverse holes, that those holes in turn have been defined as hole axes, and that the curved portion and butt portion—physical parts of the nail—have each been dubbed identical to an imaginary central axis. These interpretations are incorrect, but they are the natural consequence of finding a restrictive definition of a term anywhere the word define might appear in this patent, regardless of context. The specification does not define transverse and perpendicular to be coequal in meaning. 32 The fact that the term transverse has a broader scope than perpendicular also distinguishes this case from Nystrom v. TREX Co., 424 F.3d 1136 (Fed.Cir.2005), relied upon by the dissent. See Dissent at 814-15. In Nystrom, both parties acknowledge[d] the ordinary meaning of `board' as 'a piece of sawed lumber,' but the patentee sought to have that claim term broaden[ed] . . . to encompass relatively obscure definitions that are not supported by the written description or prosecution history. Id. at 1145. We refused to impose a construction broader than the term's ordinary meaning. Id. at 1145-46. Here, on the contrary, we decline to impose a construction narrower than the term's ordinary meaning. 33 The dissent cites to other patents whose usage of transverse arguably supports its conclusion. Dissent at 815-16. One of them, U.S. Patent No. 5,697,934, is purely extrinsic evidence and therefore merits little consideration. See Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1317. The other, U.S. Patent No. 4,475,545, is cited by the '444 patent and is part of the intrinsic record. However, it was not created by the patentee in attempting to explain and obtain the patent. Id. Its usage is not that of this patentee, and so it also merits less weight than the evidence of the patentee's own words. While these patents merit some consideration, the specification and claims of the '444 patent itself should be given significantly greater weight. Id. (noting that prosecution evidence is less useful for claim construction purposes). 34 A proper reading of the intrinsic evidence indicates that where the patentees discussed the perpendicular holes of their preferred embodiment, they were not narrowly defining the term transverse or otherwise limiting the claims, but merely discharging their statutory duties to teach and enable those of skill in the art to make and use the invention and to provide a best mode for doing so. Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1323. That preferred embodiment cannot be the only product covered by the claims; if it were, the claims themselves would be unnecessary. The district court's construction of transverse holes is correct. 2 35