2186

2186 Relationship to the Doctrine of Equivalents [R-11.2013]

Moreover, because the claim requires both promoting hemostasis and “stanching” separate and apart from promoting hemostasis, and because each limitation in a claim is material to defining the scope of the invention, Warner-Jenkins on Co., Inc. v. Hilton Davis Chemical Co., 520 U.S. 17, 29 (1997) (“Each element contained in a patent claim is deemed material to defining the scope of the patented invention”), we construe the term “stanch” as used in claim 19 to mean stopping or restricting the flow of blood to a wound.