Opinion ID: 783155
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: A Plurality of Slots Formed Therein

Text: 14 With regard to the grant of summary judgment of no literal infringement, the district court ruled that the phrase slots formed therein requires that the slots be manufactured by removing material from a pre-existing wall surface. We disagree. Slots can be formed in a wall surface by means other than removing material, such as by constructing the wall with openings built into it. 15 Nothing about the phrase slots formed therein suggests that the slots must be formed by a particular process; the phrase certainly does not indicate that the wall must be formed first and the slots formed later. A piece of wire mesh can fairly be described as a metal surface with holes formed in it, but that description does not mean that the screen was made by starting with a solid piece of metal and drilling holes in it. The phrase slots formed therein describes the physical characteristics of the product, not the method of its manufacture. 16 We also reject AVE's contention that the '762 patent's definition of a slot as an opening indicates that the stent must be made by forming an opening in previously solid material. An opening can arise by leaving a gap during the construction of a wall surface as well as by removing material from the surface. Because the language formed therein does not require the removal of material as the method of formation, we decline to superimpose a process limitation on the product claims at issue. See Vanguard Prods. Corp. v. Parker Hannifin Corp., 234 F.3d 1370, 1372 (Fed.Cir.2000) (holding that the limitation of a thin layer integral therewith described the product and did not designate a specific manufacturing process, and that a method of manufacture, even when cited as advantageous, does not of itself convert product claims into claims limited to a particular process). 17 The specifications of the '762 and '984 patents do not define the slots formed therein as openings created by the removal of material from a pre-existing wall surface. AVE relies on the statement [p]referably, tubular member 71 is initially a thin-walled stainless steel tube having a uniform thickness and a plurality of slots are formed in the wall surface 74 or tubular member 71. '762 patent, col. 6, ll. 41-44; '984 patent, col. 5, ll. 64-67. But the use of the term preferably makes clear that the language describes a preferred embodiment, not the invention as a whole. 18 The district court based its holding that the [s]lots must be formed in the wall surface of a tubular member, as by the removal of material in part on the progression of the written description of the '762 patent from its parent, U.S. Patent No. 4,733,665 (the '665 patent). Specifically, the district court relied on the fact that one of the embodiments disclosed in the '665 patent was not carried over into the specification of the '762 patent application, which was filed as a continuation in part (CIP). The '665 patent discloses two differing embodiments, which are shown in Figures 1A and 2A: 19 NOTE: OPINION CONTAINING TABLE OR OTHER DATA THAT IS NOT VIEWABLE The written description of the '665 patent states, Preferably, tubular shaped member 71 [of Figure 1A] is made of continuous, stainless steel wire woven in a criss-crossed tubular pattern to form what can be generally described as a wire mesh tube. '665 patent, col. 6, ll. 49-52. Because the wire is criss-crossed, the tube is twice as thick at the cross points as at other points on the structure. That embodiment is not present in the specification of the '762 patent or the '984 patent. 20 Like the district court, AVE relies on the absence of the Figure 1A embodiment from the '762 and '984 patents as indicating that Cordis disclaimed bent-wire stents lacking a pre-existing wall surface from which material is removed to create the slots. We reject this basis for narrowing the claims. In neither patent is there any language surrendering bent-wire stents, and the fact that the patentee chose not to include Figure 1A from the '665 patent as an embodiment in the '762 specification does not indicate that the patentee was no longer claiming any stent composed of bent wire. Rather, it is likely that the patentee chose not to include that embodiment because its overlapping members caused it not to be of substantially uniform thickness, smooth, or thin-walled (all features claimed in the '762 patent, but not in the '665 patent). 21 A patentee may choose not to carry forward a particular embodiment from a parent patent to a CIP because that embodiment does not satisfy a limitation that was added in the CIP. That choice, however, does not mean that the scope of the CIP is limited to the preferred embodiment that was carried forward. Thus, we reject AVE's contention that the failure to include a wire mesh embodiment in which wires have been bent and overlapped to form the stent should limit the construction of the claims to exclude all embodiments created by bending wire in any form. 22 The district court compared the methods of making the preferred embodiments of the '665 patent and concluded that the difference between the Figure 1A and Figure 2A embodiments is that the elongate bars of the `thin bar' [Figure 2A] embodiment `may be formed integral with one another,' a method of manufacture that the district court found to be singularly descriptive of the slotted tube preferred embodiment. However, expert testimony established that one of skill in the art would understand formed integral with one another, in the context of the patents at issue, to refer to formation from a single piece of material, which does not require construction by removal of material from a pre-existing piece of metal. 23 We also disagree with the district court's conclusion that it is significant that the '665 patent claims a plurality of intersecting elongate members while the '762 patent claims a wall surface having ... a plurality of slots. Claiming a wall having slots is essentially the same as defining a hole in terms of the structure that forms the hole. 24 We next consider statements made in the prosecution history of the '984 patent regarding the prior art Wiktor patent to determine whether the patentee effected a disclaimer of claim scope. Such a disclaimer requires clear and unmistakable statements of disavowal. See Omega Eng'g, Inc. v. Raytek Corp., 334 F.3d 1314, 1326, slip. op. at 17 (Fed.Cir.2003). 25 Dr. Schatz, the inventor of the '984 patent, characterized Wiktor as disclosing a coiled wire stent which is a `tubular shape of coiled wire wound in a special manner comprising a number of groups of turns 2.' The coiled wire stent in Wiktor has openings spiraling around its circumference as shown herein: NOTE: OPINION CONTAINING TABLE OR OTHER DATA THAT IS NOT VIEWABLE 26 In response to the examiner's rejection of the application for the '984 patent in view of the Wiktor patent, Dr. Schatz stated: 27 Wiktor does not disclose a plurality of thin-walled tubular members, each having first and second ends and a wall surface disposed between the first and second ends, the wall surface having a substantially uniform thickness and a plurality of slots formed therein, the slots being disposed substantially parallel to the longitudinal axis of each tubular member. Wiktor discloses a single stent, or graft made up of coiled wire. There is no wall surface having a plurality of slots, nor slots disposed parallel to the longitudinal axis of each tubular member. Applicant's claimed invention is not coiled wire wound in a special manner comprised of a number of groups of turns as illustrated in Wiktor. 28 The first sentence of Dr. Schatz's statement about Wiktor is a general allegation that Wiktor does not disclose the precise combination of elements claimed in the '984 patent. That statement cannot be read to disclaim any device not containing a pre-existing wall from which material is removed. Dr. Schatz more specifically distinguishes the Wiktor patent in his statement that [t]here is no wall surface having a plurality of slots, nor slots disposed parallel to the longitudinal axis of each tubular member. Clearly, he is correct that Wiktor does not have slots disposed parallel to the longitudinal axis of the member; even if the openings in Wiktor do constitute slots, they are perpendicular to the longitudinal axis of the member. It is not clear, however, what Dr. Schatz meant by no wall surface having a plurality of slots. He could have meant either that coiled wire is not a wall surface or that the openings in the coil do not constitute slots. The statement is amenable to multiple reasonable interpretations and it therefore does not constitute a clear and unmistakable surrender of all stents that lack a pre-existing wall surface from which material is removed to form the slots. In addition, the statement does not clearly disclaim any stents made of bent wire on the ground that a stent made of wire lacks any wall surface, as AVE contends. 29 Rather than supporting a narrow construction of the slots formed therein limitation, the prosecution history of the '762 patent — and particularly the reexamination — indicates that the patentee did not intend for the phrase slots formed therein to require the removal of material. For example, the examiner, in discussing the Kornberg patent, stated that Webster's Ninth New Collegiate Dictionary defines `slot' as `a narrow opening or groove.' The spaces between the Kornberg struts certainly meet this definition. The slots are formed in the tubular member since the struts are part of the wall of the tubular member. The examiner's remarks indicate that he understood that slots formed therein describes the location of the slots, not how they are made. The patentee did not dispute that statement by the examiner. The examiner also described the Ersek patent's device as having a plurality of slots 23 formed therein even though Ersek's slots are not made by removing material. The patentee distinguished the Ersek patent, but did not dispute that Ersek's device has a plurality of slots formed therein. Accordingly, the patentee did not rely on the method of manufacturing as a means of distinguishing the invention from the prior art. Because the prosecution histories of the '762 and '984 patents do not support the narrow reading of the slots formed therein limitation, we conclude that the district court erred in construing the slots formed therein limitation in the two patents to require that the slots be formed by removing material from a pre-existing wall surface. 30 Because we disagree with the district court's construction of the plurality of slots formed therein limitation, we reverse the district court's grant of summary judgment of no literal infringement based on that limitation. For the same reason, we also reverse the district court's ruling on the doctrine of equivalents, which was based on the court's construction of that limitation. 31