The ordinary meaning of a claim term cannot be completely untethered to the context of the invention. Here, for example, the claim terms “portable” and “mobile” were found to not cover everything utility meters attached to the exterior walls of buildings, even though they are at least theoretically capable of being moved, based not an importation of limitations from the specification but on the specification situating the invention in a cellular phone communications environment. “[T]he construction that stays true to the claim language and most naturally aligns with the patent’s description of the invention will be, in the end, the correct construction.” It may therefore be helpful to emphasize in the specification that whatever problem and technological area primarily addressed is for illustration purposes only.
Background / Facts: The patents being asserted here are directed to a two-way interactive communication network system for enabling communications between local subscribers and a base station. In all of the relevant claims, the subscriber unit is required to be either “portable” or “mobile.” The accused devices are electric watt-hour utility meters that are attached to the exterior walls of buildings.
Issue(s): Whether the claim terms “portable” and “mobile” should be broadly interpreted as including, essentially, anything that is theoretically capable of being moved.
Holding(s): No. “Although the terms ‘portable’ and ‘mobile’ might theoretically, in the abstract, be given such a broad meaning, they cannot be construed that way in the context of the [] patents. [] The patents consistently describe the ‘portability’ feature of the invention as the movement of a low-power subscriber unit across cell boundaries, with good digital synchronous communication contact throughout the network. This context must be considered in determining the ordinary meaning, as the ‘construction that stays true to the claim language and most naturally aligns with the patent’s description of the invention will be, in the end, the correct construction.’ [] Read in their appropriate context, the terms ‘portable’ and ‘mobile’ cannot be construed as covering the accused meters in this case.”