resin additive.” U.S. 6,265,055 C2 col. 3 ll. 34-35. The district court construed "resin additive” to be "a substance that by its properties is not typically by itself formed into a stretch wrap film layer and that is compounded into a resin”' — i.e., a non-resin substance. Multilayer v. Inteplast, 2013 WL 5972195, at *43. Multilayer does not contest this construction on appeal. Because claim 32 merely describes incorporation of a non-resin, it is not evidence that claim 1 should be open to incorporation of an unrecited resin. See Conoco, 460 F.3d at 1360 (noting that "[a]lthough 'consisting of' is a term of restriction, the restriction is not absolute” and may permit impurities or "additional components or steps that are unrelated to the invention”); see also Norian, 363 F.3d at 1331 (<HOLDING>). 6 . While Multilayer also argued in the
holding that while consisting of limits the claimed invention it does not limit aspects unrelated to the invention holding that when insureds counsel repeatedly mentioned um policy limits and the jury awarded the policy limit there was reversible error holding that policy limits are not a defense to coverage and that policy limits define the amount of coverage holding that claim of mental illness does not fit any exception to the statutes time limits holding that the title of the statute did not limit the reach of the statute