The patent’s inventors sought to increase the valve’s wear resistance through a solution that includes the use of an insert formed from a hard ceramic material, such as a tungsten carbide, fixed in a recess inside a portion of the valve seat.
Case 4:21-cv-01191-O Document 55 Filed 07/14/22 Page 7 of 35 PageID 2060Case 4:21-cv-01191-O Document 55 Filed 07/14/22 Page 7 of 35 PageID 2060 but in the context of the entire patent, including the specification.” Id. “Because the meaning of a claim term as understood by persons of skill in the art is often not immediately apparent, and because patentees frequently use terms idiosyncratically, the court looks to those sources available to the public that show what a person of skill in the art would have understood disputed claim language to mean.
Those sources include the words of the claims themselves, the remainder of the specification, the prosecution history, and extrinsic evidence concerning relevant scientific principles, the meaning of technical terms, and the state of the art.” Id. at 1314 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted).
To the extent Dr. Morse was suggesting that the “middle plate[s],” “middle segment[s],” and “middle plate segment[s]” could be of one piece with the rest of the power end frame assembly, rather than an independent component that, even if not removable, was at one point distinct from the frame assembly, that understanding conflicts with the claim language discussed above.4 And “[c]laim construction begins and ends in all cases with the actual words of the claim.” Becton, Dickinson and Co. v. Tyco Healthcare Grp., LP, 616 F.3d 1249, 1254 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted).
Thus, in light of the patent claims and specification, a person of ordinary skill in the art would understand “plate[s]” to refer to “one or more independent components linked together via crosshead support member and together forming a power end frame assembly.” See APP-444-45 (Ex. 7 ¶¶ 72-75).