Opinion ID: 208013
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Intraluminal Devices Must Have Wires

Text: Edwards also asserts that, even if the claimed devices are required to be intraluminal, such intraluminal devices need not have wires. According to Edwards, certain claims require wires, and others do not. Thus, Edwards argues, when the inventors intended not to require wires, they purposely did not include wires in those claims. Appellees respond that the district court correctly interpreted the claims to include wires, as Edwards admitted that wires provide the structure that permits the graft components to overlap and are required to anchor the device. According to Appellees, Edwards' claim differentiation argument fails because it does not trump the clear import of the specification and because the claims that add wire limitations also add further limitations, so the dependent claims are narrower not only because of the addition of wires. We agree with Appellees that the claimed graft devices must have wires because they are intraluminal and because each of the claims recites an attachment that requires wires. As the district court noted, the parties agreed at trial that intraluminal devices require wires. Claim Construction Order, 2007 WL 2128333, at , 2007 U.S. Dist. Lexis 55634, at ; Order Granting Cook Summary Judgment, 2008 WL 744825, at  n. 1, 2008 U.S. Dist. Lexis 21248, at  n. 1. Further, every embodiment described in the specification and shown in the drawings includes wires. See, e.g., '458 patent col.1 ll.46-49 (describing the present invention as including wires); id. at col.1 l.64-col.2 l.61 (describing shapes of wires); id. at col.3 ll.8-32 (describing interaction between wires and graft body); id. at col.3 ll.39-41 (describing X-ray detectibility of wires); id. at col.3 l.51-col.4 l.3 (describing ends of wires); id. at col.5 ll.26-57 (describing specific details and spacing of wires 17); id. at col.6 ll.5-7 (describing process of expanding wires). Every claim also has a requirement that the two graft devices be anchored, attached, attachable, or dockable to each other while they are inside the vessel. As the court noted, the parties agreed that only wires perform that function. Claim Construction Order, 2007 WL 2128333, at , 2007 U.S. Dist. Lexis 55634, at  (quoting Edwards' statement that [t]he parties seem to be in agreement that the structure that allows the anchoring to occur is the wires). Moreover, even though the claimed graft body does not itself include wires, see Claim Construction Order, 2007 WL 2128333, at -13, 2007 U.S. Dist. Lexis 55634, at -37, the claims that recite graft bodies also all recite that the two graft bodies are dockable ('073 patent claim 1) or attachable ('736 patent claims 1, 20, 22) to each other. Because the parties agree that such an attachment relationship requires wires, we agree with the district court that each of the claimed graft devices must include wires. We disagree with Edwards that claim differentiation requires us to hold otherwise. According to Edwards, because, for example, claim 2 of the '736 patent adds a wire structure to the graft of claim 1, the graft of claim 1 must be broader than a graft with a wire structure. However, claim differentiation is a rule of thumb that does not trump the clear import of the specification. See Netcraft Corp. v. eBay, Inc., 549 F.3d 1394, 1400 n. 1 (Fed.Cir.2008) (While claim differentiation may be helpful in some cases, it is just one of many tools used by courts in the analysis of claim terms.). Here, the specification and the parties' agreement in the district court make clear that the claimed graft devices require wires.