Ethicon argues that other portions of the claim as well as the prosecution history make it clear that “it is irrelevant whether the [barrier is still restrained] as the staples are actually being ejected” and that successful operation of the lockout requires only that the barrier be restrained long enough for the firing assembly to begin movement in the firing direction. Ethicon’s argument simply does not address the fact that U.S. Surgical’s barrier is in the path of the pusher assembly before any staples are fired. Ethicon’s reliance on other claim language to overcome this fact invites us to read its “during staple firing” limitation out of the claim. This we cannot do. See Exxon Chemical Patents, Inc. v. Lubrizol Corp., 64 F.3d 1553, 1557, 35 USPQ2d 1801, 1804 (Fed. Cir.1995) (<HOLDING>). The claim recites that the barrier is
recognizing we must give insurance policy language its ordinary and generally accepted meaning unless the policy shows that the words used are intended to impart a technical or different meaning holding that we must give effect to the plain and ordinary meaning of a statutes language holding that we must give the words in statutes their plain and ordinary meaning recognizing that we must give meaning to all the words in the claims recognizing that while we give respectful consideration to the legislatures understanding of constitutional language we are the final arbiter of the meaning of the iowa constitution