In my opinion, the court went out of its way to save a poorly drafted claim and relied too heavily on the specification for claim language that was on its face not ambiguous (especially for a claim that was not original). Despite acknowledging that “[a]t first glance” (i.e., on its face) a “respective” one indicates a one-to-one correspondence, the court essentially ignored the term “respective” entirely, reading the claim limitation instead as “each of the operator bodies being operably coupled with … one of said gripper, knotter, cutting element and cover,” and then diverting the analysis to the question of whether “one” can mean “one or more.” I would consider the patentee lucky in this case and take solace in the fact that this was a highly fact-specific context, rather than change my whole concept of what a “respective” one means. Nevertheless, this opinion exists and is precedential if it happens to be beneficial to a position you need to argue.
Background / Facts: The patents disclose a wire tier device that is used to bale recyclables or solid waste for easier handling. The claims recite gripper, knotter, cutting element, and cover components, connected to the machine by elongated operator bodies, “with each of the operator bodies being operably coupled with a respective one of said gripper, knotter, cutting element and cover.”
Issue(s): Whether the claims require that each operator body is coupled to one and only one of the gripper, knotter, cutting element, and cover components, such that at least four operator bodies are required to connect the four listed components.
Holding(s): No. The court acknowledged that “each” operator body must be coupled to “a respective one” of the gripper, knotter, cutter, and cover, but concluded that “that does not necessarily prevent an elongated operator body from being coupled to a second or even a third operator element as well.” In reaching this conclusion, the court relied heavily on the lone and preferred embodiment in the specification, which indeed had only two elongated operator bodies, each coupled to multiple components. “At first glance, the term ‘one’ appearing directly after the phrase ‘a respective’ might be viewed as limiting. In this case, however, the specification substantiates a construction that allows for an elongated operator body to be operably coupled to one or more operator elements.”