Opinion ID: 786974
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 6

Heading: Opening at the Bottom

Text: 42 Finally, TI Group argues that dependent claim 8, reciting that the opening for connecting, defined above, is at the bottom of the reservoir was construed too narrowly by the district court. The district court determined that the opening must be in the bottom surface of the reservoir. Markman Order at 2. TI Group argues that this construction is more narrow than the ordinary and customary meaning of the term bottom and is inconsistent with the written description. VDO counters that the district court's construction is consistent with every drawing in the patent. As we have already discussed, the fact that the drawings are limited to a particular embodiment does not similarly limit the scope of the claims. Anchor, 340 F.3d at 1306-07. Rather, TI Group is entitled to the full breadth of claim scope supported by the words of the claims and the written description. VDO's argument again focuses on a single, narrow dictionary definition, when many equally apt, and broader, definitions are also provided. The written description does not restrict the ordinary and customary meaning of bottom in any respect. Therefore, we conclude that the bottom of the reservoir means the lower or lowest part, Webster's at 259, of the reservoir, and is not restricted only to the bottom surface thereof.