Court Opinion

ID: 9492707
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-05 14:47:51.426199+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:55:26.570748
License: Public Domain

RADER, Circuit Judge,
dissenting.
The court today determines that the verb “include” in the ’528 patent requires an “attachment relationship.” However, the court’s interpretation of “including” cannot be justified by examination of the ordinary meaning of that word or of its accepted use in patent claims, or, especially, by a careful reading of the ’528 patent.
It is axiomatic that terms in a claim must be given their ordinary meaning unless it is apparent that the inventor used them differently in the patent. Intellicall, *1303Inc. v. Phonometrics, Inc., 952 F.2d 1384, 1387 (Fed.Cir.1992). While the court acknowledges that “[dictionaries are useful additional sources,” it did not consult one to establish the ordinary meaning of “include,” a procedure suggested by Hoganas AB v. Dresser Indus., Inc., 9 F.3d 948, 951 (Fed.Cir.1993). When the parties themselves consulted dictionaries, both emerged with similar definitions of “include,” incorporating the concept of “take in or comprise as a whole.” Combining this modern definition with the origin of “include” in the Latin Inclaudere, to shut in, confine within, or hold as in an enclosure, BLACK’S LAW DICTIONARY, 6th ed. (1990), leaves no doubt that the ordinary meaning of “include” does not require physical attachment.*
In patent claims, “including” is normally a comprehensive term, used in a way similar to “having” or “comprising.” JOHN LANDIS, MECHANICS OF PATENT CLAIM DRAFTING, section 7. In a claim element, use of the forms “comprising,” “having,” or “including,” commonly means that whatever element is comprised, had, or included, is not necessarily the only element encompassed by the subject of the clause that contains that verb. See Robert C. Faber, The Winning Mechanical Claim, 426 PLI/P 231, 353 (1995). “Including,” in a claim, thus signifies a relationship broader than “attachment.” In the invention of the ’528 patent the concept of the flow restrictor, which allows the user to adjust the air flow during the blower mode of operation, is original. ’528 patent, col. 2, 11. 29-32. Thus, the choice of the word “including” was appropriate to give the applicant the broad coverage sought and deserved for his original concept.
Finally, a careful reading of the ’528 patent also demonstrates that “including” does not here require attachment. The court mistakenly takes the described embodiment to be unique, inferring that the specification teaches that embodiment alone. The court notes that “[t]he specification shows only a structure whereby cover and ring are permanently attached to each other. This was not simply the preferred embodiment; it was the only embodiment.” On the contrary, the specification does not claim such uniqueness and describes another embodiment, specifically one in which the flow restriction ring is not permanently attached to the cover. Everywhere the word “embodiment” is used to. denote what is described in the specification of the ’528 patent, it is used in the phrase “a. preferred embodiment.” More important, the inventor contrasts the preferred embodiment not, as the court thinks, with.disadvantageous prior art, but rather with a less-preferred embodiment of the invention at hand: a blower with a replaceable, i.e., non-attached, ring. As the inventor states, the method of construction of the preferred embodiment, in which the flow restriction ring is indeed built into, and thus “part of,” the air inlet cover, is advantageous in that “it automatically restricts the size of air inlet ... without having the operator manually insert or remove a replaceable ring.” ’528 patent, col. 7, 11.6-12. But as noted above, there is no prior art for the flow restriction ring, so that such a ring in any form was part of the invention. In particular, an owner-replaceable ring, i.e., one not attached, was clearly part of the invention, and is described by element [6] of claim 16 of the ’528 patent. In short, an “included” but definitely not “attached” flow restriction ring is a feature of an embodiment of *1304the invention, but not the preferred embodiment.
The term “including,” in the context of the ’528 patent, does not imply “attachment,” and the claims of this patent should not be limited to the preferred embodiment with its attached restricting ring.

 In its rejection of the use of common definitions of, e.g., "included,” the court notes also that technical terms must be given the meaning that would be understood by persons "experienced in the field of the invention.” However, the court admits that "no special meaning in the field ... is attributed to the words ... 'included,' [and] 'attachment.' ” Nor does the court rely on any testimony by either party on the question of whether any meaning, other than the ordinary meaning, is appropriate for these words in the context of the patent