Silence in a particular example with regard to a certain aspect of the invention cannot be used to depart from consistent teachings about that aspect elsewhere in the specification. Here, for example, a figure that did not show any details of container entry or exit means for water to flow through was found to be insufficient to impact the interpretation of the claimed “water-permeable material” as encompassing both fluid inflows and outflows.
Background / Facts: The patent being asserted here is directed to adapting prior art coffee pod machines to make tea without the attendant weak taste from the short brewing time. In this regard, the claims recite a “sealed body [that] is constructed of a water-permeable material which allows flow of a fluid through said sealed body.” The district court interpreted this to require that the “water-permeable material” encompass both “the portions of the sealed body into which fluid flows and out of which fluid flows,” in contrast to the accused product, where the inflow is controlled by puncturing an otherwise impermeable foil top. The patentee contends, however, that Figure 4 in the patent teaches an embodiment in which water enters a sealed body through an opening in a material that is not otherwise permeable to water.
Issue(s): Whether the district court’s claim construction improperly excludes the embodiment in Figure 4.
Holding(s): No. “Figure 4 and its descriptions do not show any details of entry or exit means in the containers for water to flow through. From this silence, we cannot assume Figure 4 to depart from the consistent teachings elsewhere in the [] patent that water can flow through a ‘sealed body’ via a ‘water-permeable material.’”