Even clear drafting intent cannot overcome an otherwise apparent meaning to a claim term. Here, for example, an entertainment system housing structured to permit “selective” access to a user was found to exclude embodiments that permitted constant access (e.g., an unchanging side opening as opposed to a flip-down screen) even when various dependent claims clearly targeted both types of embodiments. “[I]ntent alone, without further evidence, does not inform the construction.” It may therefore be best to be vigilant in avoiding superfluous terms that may be construed as particular to any subset of embodiments narrower than the intended scope of a more generic claim.
Background / Facts: The patent being asserted here is directed to automotive headrest entertainment systems having an integrated video screen and a media player accessible to the user. Two particular embodiments are disclosed, one providing direct access to the media player through the side of the headrest and another providing indirect access to the media player via a flip-down pivot of the integrated video screen. In this regard, independent claim 1 recites a housing that is structured “to permit selective access” (original term) to the input opening of the media player to permit user positioning of the media storage device within the player, with various original dependent claims specifically targeting the two different access embodiments.
Issue(s): Whether “to permit selective access” nevertheless limits independent claim 1 to flip-down screen arrangements at the exclusion of side access arrangements in order to give meaning to the word “selective.”
Holding(s): Yes. “[According to the specification] access is selective because the housing is structured to be capable of moving between an accessible orientation and a retracted, inaccessible orientation.” In contrast, “[u]nder [the patentee’s] construction of ‘to permit selective access’ as ‘to allow choice for entry,’ the term ‘selective’ becomes unnecessary. As the district court found, by definition, one with access to the input opening may choose whether to make use of it, and as a result, [the patentee’s] proposed construction renders the term ‘selective’ unnecessary. … [The patentee’s] additional argument that dependent claims 3– 5, as originally filed, were drawn to figures 9A–10, and thus that independent claim 1 must not exclude the embodiment shown in figures 9A–10, is also unavailing. [This] argument focuses on the drafter’s intent with respect to the drafting of the original claims, but intent alone, without further evidence, does not inform the construction of claim 1. [] Although originally-filed dependent claims 3–5 may have been intended to cover figures 9A–10, and claim 1 may have initially been intended as a generic independent claim, it does not follow from the ‘selective access’ language that claim 1 covers the embodiments in figures 9A–10. As drafted and issued, claim 1 never did cover those embodiments.”