Opinion ID: 774257
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Completely Received

Text: 25 The claims of all the patents require that the projections of the insert means be respectively received in said recesses of said inner hose . . . whereby the interior of said tubular hose is substantially sealed to the interior of said coupling. 2 '752 patent, col. 10, lines 34-38. The district court construed the claim language respectively received in to require that the projections be completely received in the recesses of the inner hose, resulting in an alignment of the projections with the recesses. Order at 4. As TCI conceded at oral argument, the claim language does not explicitly require that the projections be completely received in the recesses. TCI nevertheless argues that the specification of the patents teaches that the invention requires complete reception. We disagree. We find the teaching of the specification at most ambiguous regarding the degree of reception required to form a seal. The specification states only that the projections of the insert means are initially partially received in the recesses of the inner hose, '752 patent, col. 7, lines 37-38, and then, when the inner sleeve is radially expanded, that the projections more firmly move into the recesses to create the seal. Id. at col. 7, line 66. We cannot conclude from the foregoing that the patentees unambiguously limited the scope of the claimed invention to require complete reception. For us to do so here would be to impermissibly read an unclaimed (and arguably undisclosed) limitation into the claims. As we said in Comark Communications, Inc. v. Harris Corp., 156 F.3d 1182, 1186, 48 USPQ2d 1001, 1005 (Fed. Cir. 1998), while . . . 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, quoting Sjolund v. Musland, 847 F.2d 1573, 1581, 6 USPQ2d 2020, 2027 (Fed. Cir. 1988). Here, the claims only require that the insert means projections be received in the hose recesses such that a substantial fluid seal is formed between the interior of the hose and the interior of the coupling. Complete reception is neither explicitly nor implicitly required. 26 Similarly, alignment of the projections and recesses is not required by the claim language. Nor does the specification limit the claim coverage to projections aligned with recesses. Indeed, the specification describes an embodiment of the invention in which the spacing between adjacent insert means projections differs from the spacing between adjacent inner hose recesses, see '752 patent, col. 8, lines 54-57 and col. 5, lines 40-42, such that only one projection may be exactly aligned with a recess. Thus, alignment is not required by the claims. 27