Opinion ID: 783283
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Back Surface

Text: 44 The independent claims of the '363 patent family require a masonry block comprising a front surface, a back surface, a top surface, and bottom surface, and first and second sides. See, e.g., '183 patent, col. 16, ll. 20-23 (emphasis added). The district court construed the back surface limitation to require a back surface spanning the full width of the block. Anchor, 252 F.Supp.2d at 847. This was error. 45 The ordinary meaning of the claim term back surface is a surface at the back of the block. See Webster's Third New International Dictionary 157 (1993) (defining back as the side or surface of something that is opposite to the side that is regarded as its front or face); id. at 2300 (defining surface as the exterior or outside of an object or body). The written description does not compel a construction different from the plain meaning of back surface. In departing from the ordinary meaning of back surface, the district court relied on the written description, which stated if the desired structure is to be inwardly curving, blocks of the invention ... may be completed by striking leg 24A or 24B with a chisel adjacent deflection 19, see FIGS. 1 and 4. Anchor, 252 F.Supp.2d at 847 (citing '183 patent, col. 8, ll. 10-15). The district court concluded that [t]he specification would not address the necessity of chiseling off a portion of that `back surface' if it did not inhere in the meaning of the term that the `back surface' spanned the full width. Id. Contrary to the district court's analysis, we do not read this excerpt to conclude that back surface is necessarily limited to a back surface spanning the full width of the block. Id. For us to do so here would be to impermissibly read a limitation into the claims from the written description. Comark, 156 F.3d at 1186 ([W]hile ... claims are to be interpreted in light of the specification and with a view to ascertaining the invention, it does not follow that limitations from the specification may be read into the claims. (internal quotation marks and citation omitted)). Furthermore, the parties point to nothing in the prosecution history that clearly and unmistakably disclaims a back surface that does not extend the full width of the block. Accordingly, we hold that the proper construction of back surface is a surface at the back of the block.