Opinion ID: 220600
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Body

Text: BD argues that the district court erred when it concluded that the claimed body is not limited to a one-piece structure. BD argues that the specifications describe the invention as including a one-piece body while criticizing prior art syringes that contain a two-piece body. BD also argues that claim differentiation does not apply in light of the written description's limiting statements. RTI responds that the ordinary meaning of the term body is not limited to a one-piece body. RTI points to the different usage of the term body in the claims, where some claims recite a body and other claims recite a one piece body. RTI also argues that while the preferred embodiments disclose a syringe with a one-piece body, that disclosure is directed to manufacturing benefits, not the other patentable aspects of the invention. We agree with BD that the claimed body is limited to a one-piece structure in light of the specifications. While the patents contain an independent claim that recites a body, '224 Patent, claim 25, with a dependent claim that limits the body to a one-piece body, '224 Patent, claim 31, none of the claims expressly recite a body that contains multiple pieces. Thus, while the claims can be read to imply that a body is not limited to a one-piece structure, that implication is not a strong one. It is axiomatic that the claim construction process entails more than viewing the claim language in isolation. Claim language must always be read in view of the written description, Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1315, and any presumption created by the doctrine of claim differentiation will be overcome by a contrary construction dictated by the written description or prosecution history, Seachange Int'l, Inc. v. C-COR, Inc., 413 F.3d 1361, 1369 (Fed.Cir. 2005). Thus, it is necessary to review the specifications to determine if the proper construction of the term body is limited to a one-piece body. The specifications indicate that the claimed body refers to a one-piece body. In distinguishing prior art syringes comprised of multiple pieces, the specifications state that the prior art had failed to recognize a retractable syringe that can be molded as one piece outer body. '733 patent, col.2 ll.26-31. Consistent with this characterization of the prior art, the Summary of the Invention states that [t]he invention is a retractable tamperproof syringe, and that this syringe features a one piece hollow body. Id. col.2 ll.45-47. Similarly, the specifications, in describing the invention, expressly state that each syringe embodiment contains a one-piece body. Id. col.5 l.54-56 (describing a first syringe embodiment that has a one piece hollow outer body); id. col.10 l.8-9 (disclosing an alternate syringe that has a one piece hollow outer syringe body). In addition, each figure that depicts a syringe body shows a one-piece body. In contrast, the specifications do not disclose a body that consists of multiple pieces or indicate that the body is anything other than a one-piece body. There is a fine line between construing the claims in light of the specification and improperly importing a limitation from the specification into the claims. See Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1323. In reviewing the intrinsic record to construe the claims, we strive to capture the scope of the actual invention, rather than strictly limit the scope of claims to disclosed embodiments or allow the claim language to become divorced from what the specification conveys is the invention. Id. at 1323-24. In this case, while the claims leave open the possibility that the recited body may encompass a syringe body composed of more than one piece, the specifications tell us otherwise. They expressly recite that the invention has a body constructed as a single structure, expressly distinguish the invention from the prior art based on this feature, and only disclose embodiments that are expressly limited to having a body that is a single piece. Thus, a construction of body that limits the term to a one-piece body is required to tether the claims to what the specifications indicate the inventor actually invented. Accordingly, the district court erred when it construed body as encompassing bodies composed of multiple pieces.