연방 순회 항소 법원은 비록 명세서에는 “repeated desmear process”용어가 사용되지만 청구항에서는 이에 대한 용어가 직접 사용되지 않고 있다는 점을 언급하면서 지방법원이 이를 인정하는 잘못이 있었다는 점을 지적했다.

또한 명세서의 내용으로부터 청구 범위의 내용을 제한할 때에는 반드시 “a clear and unmistakable disclaimer” 표준을 준수해야 한다는 점을 언급헸다.

• Continental asserted four patents directed to a “multilayer electrical device … having a tooth structure” against Intel.

• Claims included the limitations regarding “surface,” “removal,” “etching,” and “dielectric material.”

 •Issue: whether the claim construction of these terms should be limited to a repeated desmear process.

• District Court:

• Interpreted the limitations to require repeated process.

• Determined that the Continental characterized “The present invention” as using a repeated desmear process.

• Specification also seems to distinguish the invention from the single desmear process in the prior art.

Federal Circuit:

• Held that district court erred in costruing the terms to require that the dielectric material be “produced by a repeated desmear process.”

• The plain claim language does not include this repeated process and the specification does not unmistakably limit the claims to require this process.

• Although the claims do not stand alone and must be read in view of the specification, FC held that none of the asserted claims actually recite a “repeated desmear process.”

• Specification may include an intentional disclaimer, or disavowal, of claim scope, but it is not the case here.

• FC acknowledged difficulty in determining between whether to construe the claims in light of the specification or improperly importing a limitation from the specification into the claims.

• Must follow “a clear and unmistakable disclaimer” standard when importing limitations from specification to the claims.