found in claim 1 of the ’715 patent (the first phrase listed under “E.” above), the aluminum layer must completely cover the polysilicon layer, or whether it may only overlay a portion of that layer. APT constructs a compelling linguistic argument that this court must read a meaningful difference into the fact that Ixys used the phrase “overlying said polysilicon layer” in claim 1 of the ’715 patent and the phrase “overlying a portion of said polysilicon layer” in claim 23 of that patent and claim 11 of the ’419 patent. In the course of construing claims, a court must endeavor to give meaning to every word of the claim language. See, e.g., Apple Computer, Inc. v. Articulate Systems, Inc., 234 F.3d 14, 25 (Fed.Cir.2000); Harris Corp. v. IXYS Corp., 114 F.3rd 1149, 1152 (Fed.Cir.1997) (<HOLDING>). APT therefore urges this court to construe
recognizing that courts must be careful not to allow hindsight reconstruction of references to reach the claimed invention without any explanation as to how or why the references would be combined to produce the claimed invention holding that the one challenging the patent must in part show that the subject matter of the sale or offer to sell fully anticipated the claimed invention or would have rendered it obvious by its addition to the prior art holding that the computer readable code claimed in claim 6 the product claim was a part or component of that invention holding that a broad statutory definition of a term that was inconsistent with the terms plain meaning did not affect the terms definition in other contexts holding that a construction that effectively rendered certain terms of a claim irrelevant would contribute nothing but meaningless ver biage to the definition of the claimed invention and is therefore disfavored