Court Opinion

ID: 9496689
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-05 16:32:35.938626+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:57:43.866214
License: Public Domain

LOURIE, Circuit Judge,
dissenting.
I respectfully dissent from the majority’s conclusion. I would affirm the district court’s claim construction. It is fully supported by both the language of the claim and the specification. The claim requires the liquid and solid components to “travel ] outwardly, across the tank floor from the center portion of the tank toward the tank wall and then upwardly along the tank outer surrounding wall to a first point and then inwardly along an upper portion of the body toward the center of the tank.” Clearly, the flow returns to the center. Moreover, I disagree with the majority’s conclusion that “[cjlaim 1 requires neither a perfectly helical flow nor a flow that returns precisely to the center after one rotation.” Clearly, the meaning of the claim is that the tank components return to the center after one rotation of helical flow. While the word “one” is not used, that is the plain meaning of the claim. The flow returns to the center after one rotation. Although the district court’s language may have been a bit different from that used by the majority, it is not sufficiently different, in my view, to justify reversal. The district court expressly stated that “a perfect helix is not required.” In addition, the district court did not err in interpreting the claim in light of the patent specification, including Figures 5 and 6.