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

Heading: Within

Text: 33 TI Group next argues that the district court's definition of the term within is also unnecessarily narrow. The district court construed within to mean that the pumping means components are located inside the reservoir. Markman Order at 2. TI Group argues that this construction is more narrow than the ordinary and customary meaning of the term within, and is not consistent with the written description. VDO argues that the narrower construction is appropriate in light of the dictionary definitions and written description. 34 Again, both parties offer competing dictionary definitions in support of their argument. TI Group urges us to adopt the definition in the limits of, not outside or beyond, 20 The Oxford English Dictionary 456-58 (2d ed. 1989), or in the limits or compass of, not beyond, Webster's at 2627. VDO points instead to the definitions reciting in the inner part or interior of, 20 The Oxford English Dictionary 456-58 (2d ed. 1989), or on the inside or on the inner side, Webster's at 2627. Because all of the offered definitions are facially relevant, we rely on the written description to point away from the improper meanings and toward the proper meanings. Renishaw, 158 F.3d at 1250. 35 TI Group argues that the written description does not require the pumping means to be located within the reservoir, and further argues that, if the patentee had wished to draw such a distinction, the language for doing so was available. TI Group argues that because the patentee used the allegedly broader term within, rather than inside or on the interior, the full breadth should be afforded to the scope of the limitation. VDO argues in response: (1) that the structures illustrated in the drawings of the written description show the pumping means located inside of the reservoir; (2) that TI Group's argument ignores the primary (and most relevant) definition of `within'; and (3) that statements made by TI Group during prosecution of a Japanese counterpart application confirm that the patentee intended within to mean inside. 36 With respect to VDO's first argument, regarding the drawings being limited to the construction it urges, we have held that the mere fact that the patent drawings depict a particular embodiment of the patent does not operate to limit the claims to that specific configuration. Anchor Wall Sys. v. Rockwood Retaining Walls, Inc., 340 F.3d 1298, 1306-07 (Fed. Cir.2003) (citing Hockerson-Halberstadt, Inc. v. Avia Group Int'l, Inc., 222 F.3d 951, 956 (Fed.Cir.2000)). The drawings, without more, are insufficient to cabin the scope of the ordinary and customary meaning of the term within in this case. As to VDO's second argument, regarding the primary definition of within, we again reiterate that a patentee is entitled to a definition that encompasses all consistent meanings. Brookhill-Wilk, 334 F.3d at 1300. Finally, with respect to VDO's argument regarding statements made during foreign prosecution, we decline to comment, given our conclusion below, and note only that the varying legal and procedural requirements for obtaining patent protection in foreign countries might render consideration of certain types of representations inappropriate for consideration in a claim construction analysis of a United States counterpart. Caterpillar Tractor Co. v. Berco, S.p.A., 714 F.2d 1110, 1116 (Fed.Cir.1983). 37 Although VDO's arguments in favor of the district court's construction are not persuasive, we nonetheless conclude that the district court's construction of within was correct because the dictionary definitions TI Group urges us to adopt are not so different from those urged by VDO and adopted by the district court. TI Group's definition is within the limits of, not outside or beyond. VDO's definition is on the inside. Certainly, in ordinary and customary usage, what is not outside is on the inside. Thus, we affirm the district court's construction of the term within as meaning inside.