Opinion ID: 783283
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: The back surface, protrusion, and mate limitations in the '363 patent family

Text: 43 With respect to the '363 patent family, Anchor argues that the district court erred in its construction of the terms back surface, protrusion, and mate, and that under the correct claim construction there is a genuine issue of material fact as to literal infringement by the Classic block so as to preclude the entry of summary judgment on that issue. Rockwood responds that the district court, relying on the claim language and the written description in conjunction with the drawings, properly attributed special limited meanings, Anchor, 252 F.Supp.2d. at 845, to the disputed claim terms.
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.
46 The claims of the '363 patent family require a protrusion on one of said top or bottom surfaces of the claimed block. See, e.g., '183 patent, col. 16, ll. 20-33 (emphasis added). The district court construed protrusion to include the limitation of having a central narrow portion. This was error. 47 The ordinary meaning of the claim term protrusion is something that protrudes. See Webster's Third New International Dictionary 1826. The district court relied on the written description, which states that, [t]he central narrow portion in protrusion 26 (FIGS 1-6) allows for orientation of the blocks to provide inner curving and outer curving walls by the aligned seating and the relative rotation of the protrusion 26 within, and in relationship to, any block inset 22A or 22B, '183 patent, col. 5, ll. 9-13, to conclude that this statement attaches the characteristic of having a central narrow portion to the term protrusion. Anchor, 252 F.Supp.2d at 848. Contrary to the district court's claim construction, the written description does not describe with reasonable clarity, deliberateness, and precision, In re Paulsen, 30 F.3d 1475, 1480 (Fed.Cir.1994), that protrusion requires a central narrow portion. Indeed, the many uses of the term in the written description are consistent with the ordinary meaning of protrusion, one encompassing protrusions of any number of shapes. See, e.g., '363 patent, col. 4, ll. 55-56 (While the protrusions may take any number of shapes, they preferably have a kidney or dogbone shape. (emphases added)). The general rule, of course, is that claims of a patent are not limited to a preferred embodiment, unless by their own language. See, e.g., Va. Panel Corp. v. MAC Panel Co., 133 F.3d 860, 866 (Fed.Cir.1997) ([I]t is well settled that device claims are not limited to devices which operate precisely as the embodiments described in detail in the patent.). There is nothing in this case that warrants departing from the general rule. 48 Moreover, it is axiomatic that a claim construction that excludes a preferred embodiment such as the circular protrusions disclosed in Figure 3A is rarely, if ever correct and would require highly persuasive evidentiary support. Vitronics, 90 F.3d at 1583; see, e.g., '363 patent, fig. 3A. Contrary to the district court's conclusion, varied use of a disputed term in the written description attests to the breadth of a term rather than providing a limiting definition. See, e.g., Enercon GmbH v. Int'l Trade Comm'n, 151 F.3d 1376, 1385 (Fed.Cir.1998) (refusing to limit a term used interchangeably in the written description to only one of the uses of the term). That the term protrusion is used at various points in the written description to refer to protrusions [that] may take any number of shapes is simply not a special and particular definition created by the patent applicant, Renishaw PLC v. Marposs Societa' per Azioni, 158 F.3d 1243, 1249 (Fed.Cir.1998), and is thus an insufficient reason to limit the scope of the claim. Furthermore, the parties point to nothing in the prosecution history compelling us to deviate from the ordinary meaning of protrusion. Accordingly, we hold that the proper construction of protrusion is something that protrudes.
49 The claims of the '363 patent family require that the protrusion be configured to mate with an inset of one or more adjacently positioned blocks. See, e.g., '183 patent, col. 16, ll. 20-33 (emphasis added). The district court construed mate to require the following three limitations: (1) a close confinement of the protrusion within the inset(s) of one or more blocks; (2) an ability to secure the blocks in place in a forwards and backwards direction; and (3) an interlocking of the protrusion with the insets. Anchor, 252 F.Supp.2d. at 844-45. Anchor does not dispute the district court's third limitation that mate is interchangeable with interlock in the patent specification. However, we hold that the first and second limitations of the district court's construction of mate are erroneous. 50 The ordinary meaning of mate, as the district court found, is to join or fit together. Id. at 845 (citing Merriam-Webster's New Collegiate Dictionary 716). Contrary to the district court's narrow construction, the written description does not define mate as requiring a close confinement of the protrusion within the inset(s) of one or more blocks. Id. at 844. In describing one preferred design, the written description only states that the area of the inset should be — not must be — approximately the same area as, or only slightly larger than, protrusion 26 with which it will mate. '363 patent, col. 4, ll. 37-40. The written description makes quite clear that the open-ended examples of mating are merely illustrative; that is, they do not exhaustively delineate the scope of the term mate whose ordinary meaning is clear from the claims. Id. at col. 4, ll. 35-38 (The area of the insets adjacent the block to surface 10 is preferably larger than the protrusion 26 by a factor of 5% or more and preferably about 1% to 2% or more.  (emphases added)). Moreover, the general rule, of course, is that claims of a patent are not limited to the preferred embodiment, unless by their own language. See, e.g., Va. Panel, 133 F.3d at 866. That the term mate is used in a nonlimiting way in the written description with respect to preferred degrees of confinement is simply not a special and particular definition created by the patent applicant, Renishaw, 158 F.3d at 1249, and is thus an insufficient reason to limit the scope of mate to require close confinement. 51 Furthermore, the prosecution history does not attribute a special meaning to the term mate as requiring an ability to secure the blocks in place in a forwards and backwards direction. Anchor, 252 F.Supp.2d at 844-46. During prosecution of the common parent application of the '363 patent family, the applicant distinguished features of its invention over prior art by admitting that the insets (1) extend into side surfaces of the blocks and (2) are for mating with a protrusion from a second, similarly configured block. The applicant also argued during prosecution that the prior art references require some form of additional engagement structure (i.e., pins in Forsberg, and mortar in Italy 709,599) to secure each of the blocks in place (emphasis in original). As these statements show, the patentee did not clearly and unmistakably relinquish any claim to a block in which the mating does not include the district court's functional limitation of restricting the movement of the block in a forwards and backwards direction. Omega, 334 F.3d at 1325-26 ([F]or prosecution disclaimer to attach, our precedent requires that the alleged disavowing actions or statements made during prosecution be both clear and unmistakable.). Rather, the applicant's statements distinguish the prior art primarily in structural terms by emphasizing that the invention of the '363 patent family does not require an additional engagement structure such as pins or mortar to secure the blocks in place. We therefore do not consider the applicant's remarks to be a clear and unmistakable disavowal of claim scope as required to depart from the ordinary meaning of the term provided by the specification and therefore hold that the proper construction of mate is to join or fit together.