Despite the broad language cautioning against importing language into the claims based on consistent or even exclusive use in the disclosed examples, it remains good practice to include at least two examples for claim terms recited more broadly. The courts seem only willing to grant patentees the broader language for terms that really are of no consequence to the operation of the invention.
Background / Facts: The patents at issue were directed to an improved coronary stent for use in balloon angioplasty catheterization procedures. The district court issued a Markman Order construing, in pertinent part, the term “connecting strut column,” to require that the connecting struts forming the column be “unattached” from one another.
Issue(s): Whether the district court impermissibly imported the “unattached” limitation into the claims based on the examples in the specification.
Holding(s): Yes. While the examples in the specification show only connecting strut columns with unattached connecting struts, the specification does not require the connecting struts to be unattached. The court found that: (1) neither the claims nor the specification says anything about “unattached” connecting struts; (2) nothing in the functionality of the connecting strut column requires the struts to be unattached to one another; and (3) there is no probative evidence as to any ordinary meaning in the art. “[W]e have repeatedly held that the fact that the specification describes only a single embodiment, standing alone, is insufficient to limit otherwise broad claim language.”