that the term “pneumatic cylinder,” as used in the '690 patent, encompasses cylinders that do not use pressure activated seals, and that claims 1 and 16 are not ambiguous. For that reason, it was error for the district court to use the possible invalidity of those claims, if broadly construed, as a basis for construing them narrowly. See Liebel-Flarsheim, 358 F.3d at 911. That is not to say that we reject the district court’s validity analysis; we hold only that the court’s validity analysis cannot be used as basis for adopting a narrow construction of the claims. Instead, any validity issues that the defendants have preserved and wish to press can be addressed on remand, as was done in the Liebel-Flarsheim case. See Liebel-Flarsheim Co. v. Medrad, Inc., 481 F.3d 1371 (Fed.Cir.2007) (<HOLDING>). While we reverse the district court on the
holding that patentees failure to respond to examiners statements in the reasons for allowance effectively prohibited a different construction of the claim holding that state had waived argument because it could have been raised in an earlier appeal but was not and because it fell outside the scope of remand recognizing that the constitutional right to appeal must be given a practical construction holding invalid claims that had been given a broad construction at the patentees behest in an earlier appeal holding that where a witness had been convicted seventeen years earlier but had been given probation and had not been confined the date of the conviction controlled