Background

• Newtech owns the '811 patent for a paint matching and touch-up method to repair vehicle scratches.
• The patent uses a sequence employing four cloths to apply solvent, wax/solvent mixture, and to remove residue and finalize cleaning.
• The parties dispute the meaning of the term 'cloth' in the claims; five other terms are agreed prior to construction.
• This is a Markman claims-construction ruling following a hearing to determine the scope of the disputed term.
• The specification repeatedly describes towels and shop towels in preferred embodiments, tying 'cloth' to handheld absorbent materials in automotive detailing.
• The prosecution history contrasts the claimed cloth-based approach with the IMAC system, which used various absorbent implements.

Issues

Key Cases Cited

• Markman v. Westview Instruments, Inc., 517 U.S. 370 (U.S. 1996) (claims construction is a matter of law)
• Vitronics Corp. v. Conceptronic, Inc., 90 F.3d 1576 (Fed. Cir. 1996) (intrinsic evidence governs claim construction)
• Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (the claim construction should stay true to claim language and description)
• Gillette v. Energizer Holdings, 403 F.3d 1367 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (claim differentiation and enumeration of elements affect construction)
• In re Fout, 675 F.2d 297 (CCPA 1982) (Jepson format and patent scope considerations)
• U.S. Surgical Corp. v. Ethicon, Inc., 103 F.3d 1554 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (deferred duties in claim-term analysis)
• 02 Micro Intern'l Ltd. v. Beyond Innovation Tech Corp., 521 F.3d 1351 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (prior art and claim scope considerations in construction)
• Vitronics Corp. v. Conceptronic, Inc., 90 F.3d 1576 (Fed. Cir. 1996) (intrinsic evidence central to claim interpretation)