reject the scope of the invention” to those embodiments); see also Boston Scientific
Scimed, Inc. v. Cordis Corp., 554 F.3d 982, 987 (Fed. Cir. 2009).
B. Independent Manipulation
The closer question is whether “distinct” requires independent manipulation of
the metacode map and mapped content. Several of the embodiments in the ’449 patent
allow the user to manipulate only the metacode map or mapped content. ’449 Patent
figs.4, 5, 6, 8. However, based on our review of the claim language, the specification,
and the prosecution history, we conclude that the claims are not limited to these
Generally, a claim is not limited to the embodiments described in the
specification unless the patentee has demonstrated a “clear intention” to limit the claim’s
Flarsheim, 358 F.3d at 906; see also Teleflex, Inc. v. Ficosa N. Am. Corp., 299 F.3d
1313, 1327 (Fed. Cir. 2002). By the same token, not every benefit flowing from an
Servs. Corp. v. Vonage Holding Corp., 503 F.3d 1295, 1302-03 (Fed. Cir. 2007).
“independent manipulation” of the mapped content and metacode map, an omission we
find significant. Had the inventors intended this limitation, they could have drafted the
claims to expressly include it.
Similarly, the specification refers to “separate,” rather than “independent,”
manipulation of the document’s architecture and content. The specification goes on to
describe the storage of the metacode map and content as “distinct and separate.”