Opinion ID: 774874
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: The Claim Language and the Written Description

Text: 30 In construing the claims of a patent, we review the intrinsic evidence, which consists of the claim language, the written description, and the prosecution history. Interactive Gift Express, Inc. v. Compuserve Inc., 254 F.3d 1334 (Fed. Cir. July 13, 2001). We first look to the claims themselves and turn next to the written description and the prosecution history, which should always be consulted to construe the language of the claims. Gart v. Logitech, 254 F.3d 1334, 1339-40, 59 USPQ2d 1290, 1293-94 (Fed. Cir. 2001). This intrinsic evidence is consulted to determine if the patentee has chosen to be his or her own lexicographer, or when the language itself lacks sufficient clarity such that there is no means by which the scope of the claim may be ascertained from the claim language itself. Id. (internal citations omitted). When the foregoing circumstances are not present, we presume that the terms in the claim mean what they say. Id. In other words, we follow the general rule that terms in the claim are to be given their ordinary and accustomed meaning. Id. 31 We begin with the phrase substantially uniform itself. Ordinarily, uniform means always the same as in form or degree; unvarying. The American Heritage Collection Dictionary 1475 (3d ed. 1997). Additionally, ordinarily . . . 'substantially' means 'considerable in . . . extent,' American Heritage Dictionary Second College Edition 1213 (2d ed. 1982), or 'largely but not wholly that which is specified,' Webster's Ninth New Collegiate Dictionary 1176 (9th ed. 1983). York Prods., Inc. v. Cent. Tractor Farm & Family Cent., 99 F.3d 1568, 1573, 40 USPQ2d 1619, 1622 (Fed. Cir. 1996). Furthermore, the language substantially uniform expressly modifies the term alkaline detergent. Thus, the claim language itself explicitly ties substantially uniform to the detergent itself, not to any overall function of the detergent-containing article of commerce. 32 The '818 written description does not reveal any special definition for the terms substantially or uniform or the phrase substantially uniform. See, e.g., '818 patent, col. 18, ll. 30-31 (the mixture was sufficiently viscous so that a uniform dispersion was maintained); id. at col. 22, ll. 62-64 (the solid cast detergent of this invention provides very uniform chlorine recovery when compared to a prior art formulation); id. at col. 5, ll.13-15 (an article of commerce capable of dispensing dissolved solids from substantially only one surface); id. at col. 5, ll. 41-43 (the cast detergent can be demolded and inserted in an inexpensive container or receptacle which has substantially the same configuration as the mold). Furthermore, the use of the term substantially to modify the term uniform does not render this phrase so unclear such that there is no means by which to ascertain the claim scope. 33 We note that like the term about, the term substantially is a descriptive term commonly used in patent claims to avoid a strict numerical boundary to the specified parameter. Pall Corp. v. Micron Seps., 66 F.3d 1211, 1217, 36 USPQ2d 1225, 1229 (Fed. Cir. 1995); See, e.g., Andrew Corp. v. Gabriel Elecs. Inc., 847 F.2d 819, 821-22, 6 USPQ2d 2010, 2013 (Fed. Cir. 1988) (noting that terms such as approach each other, close to, substantially equal, and closely approximate are ubiquitously used in patent claims and that such usages, when serving reasonably to describe the claimed subject matter to those of skill in the field of the invention, and to distinguish the claimed subject matter from the prior art, have been accepted in patent examination and upheld by the courts). In this case, substantially avoids the strict 100% nonuniformity boundary. 34 Certainly the written description teaches that Ecolab's inventive cast was advanced as a solution to the problems associated with prior art solid detergents. We also acknowledge that accompanying its amendment adding the term substantially uniform to the claim, the patentee noted it is of vital importance to maintain the homogeneity of the cast so that sufficient hardness sequestering agent and alkali metal hydroxide are available at all times. However, this statement about the vital importance of having a homogeneous cast says nothing about having a homogeneous solution. Furthermore, the fact that the claimed composition was designed to solve certain problems of the prior art and the fact that the patentee noted the functional import of having a homogeneous cast does not mean that we must attribute a function to the nonfunctional phrase substantially uniform. Where the function is not recited in the claim itself by the patentee, we do not import such a limitation. See Jenric/Pentron, Inc. v. Dillon Co., Inc., 205 F.3d 1377, 1382, 54 USPQ2d 1086, 1090 (Fed. Cir. 2000) (This court rejects any attempt to carve out a portion of cerium oxide according to functions not recited in the claim.).