Opinion ID: 812884
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: “Hot-rolled steel sheet”

Text: All claim construction issues concern claim 1, the only asserted independent claim in the patent. ArcelorMittal first argues that the district court erroneously construed the term “hot-rolled steel sheet,” improperly excluding from the scope of the claim steel sheet that has been coldrolled to its final thickness following initial hot-rolling. AK Steel replies that the district court properly interpreted the term in accordance with its ordinary and customary meaning in the art. We agree with ArcelorMittal. By its use of the term “comprising,” claim 1 expressly contemplates additional, unstated steps such as coldrolling. “The transition ‘comprising’ creates a presumption . . . that the claim does not exclude additional, unrecited elements.” Crystal Semiconductor Corp. v. TriTech Microelectronics Int’l, Inc., 246 F.3d 1336, 1348 (Fed. Cir. 2001). To rebut this presumption, AK Steel offers only the conclusory assertion that “[t]he very definition of ‘hotrolled steel sheet’ is steel sheet that has been reduced to its final thickness by hot-rolling.” Appellee’s Br. 36–37. It is true that there is ample extrinsic evidence establishing that the ordinary meaning of “hot-rolled steel sheet” in the industry refers to steel sheet that has not been cold-rolled. Expert witnesses for both ArcelorMittal and AK Steel agreed that this definition was customary in the industry. Furthermore, a leading steel-making treatise classified steel sheet according to this industry usage. However, while AK Steel is correct that the ordinary meaning of the term in the industry is clear, the specification is not consistent with that meaning. In Phillips v. AWH Corp., we emphasized that the specification is the primary guide to claim interpretation, recognizing that ARCELOR MITTAL v. AK STEEL CORP 8 “the specification is ‘the single best guide to the meaning of a disputed term.’” 415 F.3d 1303, 1320–21 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc) (quoting Vitronics Corp. v. Conceptronic, Inc., 90 F.3d 1576, 1582 (Fed. Cir. 1996)). Although definitions based on dictionaries, treatises, industry practice, and the like often are important aids in interpreting claims, they may not be “used to contradict claim meaning that is unambiguous in light of the intrinsic evidence.” Id. at 1324. Here, the specification makes clear that the claim term “hot-rolled steel sheet” does not preclude a cold-rolling step. References to an optional cold-rolling step abound in the specification of the ’805 patent. ’805 patent col. 1 ll. 47–48, col. 2 ll. 30–31, 37–40, col. 3 ll. 7–9. AK Steel argues that these references describe “distinct products” and that the specification elsewhere uses the word “sheet” where it means to refer to both steel that has been hotrolled to its final thickness and steel that was also coldrolled. Appellee’s Br. 29. The district court based its claim construction on similar reasoning. See ArcelorMittal, 755 F. Supp. 2d at 546–47. However, that is not a coherent reading of the specification for at least two reasons. First, the specification contemplates that “[t]he sheet according to the invention . . . may be cold-rerolled again depending on the final thickness desired.” ’805 patent col. 2 ll. 37–40. It also describes the invention’s purpose as including the production of “cold-rolled steel sheet.” Id. at col. 1 ll. 37–38. This directly contradicts the district court’s claim construction, under which the sheet must be reduced to its final thickness by hot-rolling. The claims and specification should be read “‘in a manner that renders the patent internally consistent.’” Pfizer, Inc. v. Teva Pharm. USA, Inc., 429 F.3d 1364, 1373 (Fed. Cir. 2005) 9 ARCELOR MITTAL v. AK STEEL CORP (quoting Budde v. Harley-Davidson, Inc., 250 F.3d 1369, 1379–80 (Fed. Cir. 2001)). Second, the specification describes an embodiment “having a thickness of approximately 1 mm.” ’805 patent col. 4 ll. 8–9. That thickness, at least at the time of the invention, could only have been achieved by cold-rolling. Indeed, the specification states that “[a]ccording to the invention” the sheet’s thickness may be as low as 0.25 mm, ’805 patent col. 3 ll. 44–46, a thickness that even AK Steel concedes is achievable only by cold-rolling. To be sure, patent protection does not extend to subject matter disclosed but not claimed. Unique Concepts, Inc. v. Brown, 939 F.2d 1558, 1562–63 (Fed. Cir. 1991). However, “[w]e normally do not interpret claim terms in a way that excludes disclosed examples in the specification.” Verizon Servs. Corp. v. Vonage Holdings Corp., 503 F.3d 1295, 1305 (Fed. Cir. 2007). Because the specification unambiguously contemplates cold-rolling, the district court erred by interpreting the claim term “hot-rolled steel sheet” to exclude steel sheet subsequently cold-rolled.1 The correct construction of “hot-rolled steel sheet” is “a steel sheet that has been hot-rolled during its production.” 1 This conclusion is not contradicted by the prosecution history. Although ArcelorMittal amended claim 1 to remove the explicit reference to optional cold-rolling, the initial rejection of the claim was because it was ambiguous whether the coating was optional, and the substitution of the “comprising” language made clear that optional additional steps were still contemplated. Nothing in the prosecution history amounted to a disclaimer of coldrolling. ARCELOR MITTAL v. AK STEEL CORP 10