Intrinsic claim interpretation tools such as the specification supersede extrinsic tools such as dictionaries and grammar manuals even when they are couched in terms of informing a plain and ordinary meaning.
Background / Facts: The patents-in-suit relate to multi-layer elastomeric laminates found in the body-hugging areas of products such as the waistband or side tabs of disposable diapers or adult incontinence products. The claims recite stretchable films or laminates that, once affixed to the diaper, allow the product to expand to fit around the person wearing them with the laminate stabilizing to recover its shape once stretching is complete. Several claim terms are in dispute. Among them is the term “continuous microtextured skin layer over substantially the entire laminate.”
Issue(s): Whether the term “continuous microtextured skin layer” should be read to require both the microtexturing and the skin layer to be “continuous” across “substantially the entire surface area of the laminate,” rather than only the skin layer being continuous.
Holding(s): Yes. “Close examination of the intrinsic and extrinsic references supports the … [interpretation] in which a skin layer can have non-microtextured areas, but the microtexturing encompasses ‘substantially the entire surface area of the laminate.’ … [The patentee’s] purported plain reading of the claim term applies The Chicago Manual of Style in arguing that ‘continuous’ is limited to modifying ‘skin layer’ and cannot modify the entire phrase ‘microtextured skin layer.’ We do not adopt [the patentee’s] reliance on extrinsic evidence because we must first consider what a skilled artisan reading the claim would understand the limitation to mean. Here, the … Patent provides a skilled artisan with substantial guidance in deciphering the extent of the microtexturing.” The court then went on to chastise the patentee for asserting arguments to the contrary as mere hindsight-driven litigation tactics: “While it may be beneficial, for purposes of litigation, for [the patentee] to argue that if the inventors had wished to require the microtexturing to be ‘continuous,’ then they would have used the adverb ‘continuously’ instead of ‘continuous,’ our cases do not indulge hindsight.”