*3 structure disclosed in We re- NEWMAN, DYK, Before PROST, mand for further proceedings in these re- Judges. Circuit spects. We affirm the Commission’s de- Opinion for the court by filed Circuit termination in all respects. other Judge DYK. BACKGROUND Dissenting opinion by filed Circuit receptacles GFCI are the electrical out-
Judge NEWMAN. lets commonly found in bathrooms and DYK, Judge. Circuit kitchens. Typically, they can be identified General Protecht Group, (“GPG”), Inc. by the “test” and “reset” posi- buttons Wenzhou Trimone Science and Technology tioned between the two electrical sockets. Co., Electric (“Trimone”), Ltd. and Shang- are designed GFCIs to protect people (“ELE”) hai ELE Manufacturing Corp. from potentially fatal electrical shocks appeal from a final determination of the off cutting the flow electricity “trip- —or (“Com- International Trade ping” a “ground device detects —when mission”) that the importation fault.” A into ground GFCI detects fault States, United sale for importation, or sale when the electrical flowing current from within the United ground of certain States the GFCI to a connected device on the (“GFCIs”) fault interrupters violat- “hot” prong socket not match ed section 337 of the 1930, Tariff Act of the current flowing the connected amended, § 19 U.S.C. 1337. The Commis- device back to the on the GFCI “neutral” sion issued limited exclusion orders against prong of the socket. This indicates here, the Com- pertinent as is an Insofar along leaking out current electrical order limited exclusion issued per- mission through possibly path, unintended States the United entry into prohibiting wire exposed may be due This son. or more infringe one being dropped GPG GFCIs device’s or the connected patent and the '398 1 and 7 of of claims example. water, for Tri- patent; the '340 and 18 of claims 14 (“Pass Sey- & Inc. Seymour, & Pass or more infringing one mone GFCIs mour”) various GFCI assignee of is the patent; and 18 of claims 14 a com- on September patents. *4 more of one or infringing ELE GFCIs the Com- Seymour, & by Pass filed plaint claims 7, 1, patent, and 8 of the claims to deter- investigation an initiated mission patent, and 18, 14, and 30 of 337 of of section violations mine whether patent. of the 1 and 15 claims 1337) (19 § U.S.C. of 1930 Tariff Act final became determination Commission’s into the importation had occurred of the 8, 2009, at the conclusion May on States, importation, for the sale United period. review See sixty-day presidential after States within United sale noted, GPG, § As 1337(j)(4). 19 U.S.C. alleged- certain GFCIs importation of and Trimone, timely appealed, ELE and pat- Seymour’s of & infringe Pass ly some 28 U.S.C. under jurisdiction we have ELE, Trimone, others GPG, and ents. 1295(a)(6). § respondents. named as were 2008, 24, the Administra- September On Discussion (“ALJ”) initial issued Judge tive Law Trimone, ELE raise numer- GPG, and section of finding violations determination the Commission’s challenging ous issues In re appellants. See by each 337 ac- determination, that their arguing final Interrupt- Fault Circuit Certain Ground or that infringe do not cused devices Same, Inv. No. Containing Prods. &ers We have patents are invalid. asserted 24, (Int’l Sept. Trade Comm’n 337-TA-615 and find arguments, appellants’ considered Determination”). (“Initial Appel- 2008) Therefore, we unpersuasive. most them review the Commission petitioned lants determination Commission’s affirm the decision, the Commission and the ALJ’s an extended we think respects, and most review certain it would determined unnecessary. points is of those discussion findings. ALJ’s only those on focus our discussion We is- 9, 2009, Commission March On we conclude to which issues as to the respect opinion. With its final sued error. was in appeal, in this involved claims devices final the Commission’s review We Commission, modifying while section a violation 337 determination re- in a few claim constructions ALJ’s of the Administrative standards under the infringe- findings affirmed spects, (“APA”). 19 Act See U.S.C. Procedure Trimone, appealed. GPG, ment. APA, re court 1337(c). § Under appeal. addresses opinion This legal determina views the Commission’s re- the Commission respects, other certain findings for and its factual de novo tions infringement. findings of the ALJ’s versed See U.S.C. evidence. substantial separate In Seymour appealed. & Pass Int’l, v. Inc. 706(2)(A), (E); Honeywell § we address today opinion released 1332, Comm’n, 341 F.3d Int’l Trade appeal.1 patents products, and additional dents and and limit- determination 1. The Commission’s appeal. in either respon- not included other also involved order ed exclusion (Fed.Cir.2003). Claim construction is an at least one detection circuit including a issue of law and subject to de novo circuit segment coupled between the Cybor Techs., review. See Corp. v. FAS line terminals to gen- Inc., (Fed.Cir.1998) 138 F.3d erate a predetermined signal in re- (en banc). sponse to detecting a proper wiring condition, signal I The '340 Patent not simulating a condition, fault The Commission found that GFCI proper wiring condition being effected devices from each of the appellants three when the line terminals are connected infringe the GPG’s 2003 and ato source of power; AC 2006 GFCIs were found to infringe claims an interrupting contact assembly cou- 18; 14 and Trimone’s 2006 GFCIs were pled to the at least one detection cir- infringe found to found to infringe claims cuit, the interrupting contact assembly 18; 14 and and ELE’s 2006 GFCIs were including sets interrupting four infringe 14, 18, found to claims *5 contacts that configured are to pro- patent '340 is directed to a GFCI vide electrical continuity between the receptacle that “detects the wiring state of line terminals and the load terminals the device and operation inhibits if the in a reset state and configured in- to device is patent miswired.” col.2 terrupt the electrical continuity in 11.29-31. properly wired, When the electri- state, tripped the interrupting contact cal source is connected to the GFCI’s “line assembly being substantially prevent- terminals,” from power flows into ed from effecting the reset state ab- However, rest of the device. is a there predetermined sent the signal being chance an that may installer accidentally generated by the at least one detec- miswire the electrical source to the de- tion circuit. terminals,” vice’s “load which are normally '340 patent col.10 11.7-25(emphases add- intended for connection to downstream ed). outlets that ground receive protection fault through miswired, the GFCI. If the de- A “detection circuit” vices do protect against ground not a fault. argue ELE and GPG To that effect their miswiring GFCIs protection, do not infringe has a the '340 because “detection to circuit” their detect whether the devices do have a GFCI device not proper- is “detection cir- ly wired an circuit, to electrical cuit.” The ALJ and “four construed “detection cir- sets of interrupting contacts” cuit” to to mean “at least one detection cir- make or break electrical be- cuit having circuit a segment circuit connected tween the line and the terminals load ter- between line terminals and configured minals, depending on the signal from the generate to signal in re- detection circuit. representa- Claim is sponse detecting a proper wiring condi- tive: tion, which occurs when the line terminals
14. An electrical wiring device are compris- connected to a source of power.” AC ing: terminals; line terminals and load Determination, Initial slip op. at Ap- 85.2 dependent Claim 18 is suggested claim rep- difference in language thus has the same language limitation. any scope. resents difference The ALJ independent claim slightly 30 is different treated elements as identical. See Initial from that of respect claim 14 with to this Determination, slip op. at 92. However, element. parties none of the has detecting a proper response signal full Commis- petition not did pellants Determination, Initial wiring condition.” construction. ALJ’s review sion for added). But (emphasis op. at 85 slip not review did Thus, the Commission clear, makes testimony own Harman’s adopted Dr. construction, and therefore ALJ’s merely the is signal” challenges “predetermined on his nor GPG ELE it. Neither hot from the originating the ALJ’s flow” “current appropriateness appeal 40,396. GPG, The identified howev- J.A. line terminal. construction. claim original current; it is effectively generate modi- ALJ circuit does er, argues power AC it with misapplied comes from current that the construction fied detecting instead GFCIs. connection. So to the GPG respect generating wiring condition and proper erred that the Commission argues ELE con- properly as the response, signal its finding that ALJ’s adopting the accused GFCIs requires, claim strued because patent, infringe GFCIs Dr. or not. operate, power have simply gener- a circuit not have do its devices evi- testimony is not substantial Harman’s when signal” “predetermined ates a finding that ELE’s to support dence is device GFCI detects 14, 18, infringe claims GFCIs Rather, claims wired.3 properly electrically iso- designed its GFCIs terminals, so devices load cir- late the “detection the focus GPG’s While power an AC when only power have simply than different somewhat argument cuit” the GFCIs’ wired properly *6 source also ELE’s, and 2006 GFCIs GPG’s power the terminals, power when and lack limita- circuit” satisfy “detection the do not terminals. the load is miswired source by argued reason same tion Dr. Har- by identified The circuits ELE. finding that his ALJ based not devices do in the accused GPG cir- man “detection meet the GFCIs ELE 2006 response detect- any signal & testimony generate of Pass cuit” limitation on Rather, the (“Dr. wiring condition. Harman ing proper Dr. Tom expert, Seymour’s properly if Harman”). hearing power before have either At GFCIs AC the circuit miswired. presented wired, do not if ALJ, they Dr. Harman and identified flows terminal device the hot line diagram for ELE’s from current “detection properly as the the device when portion each identified into identi- 40,396. He then J.A. cannot be wired, circuit.” See AC current but that as electri- signal” not “predetermined it is fied signal” because “predetermined hot line from the flowing in cal current circuit. Commission by the generated circuit, terminal, the identified through and GPG’s both ELE’s acknowledged that line terminal. the neutral through isolating out way, by the same work GFCIs Id. flows only power so that terminals the load properly are wired the devices when in- however, plainly testimony, This at Arg. 21:31—:46. Oral terminals. claims of asserted with the consistent Therefore, GFCIs 2003 and GPG’s construction. ALJ’s patent and and 18 of infringe claims do not also require “detec- claims The construed patent. “generate tion circuit” this broadened has plant, parties did suggests that the dissent 3. The recognition and effec- beyond clearly argued all argument, but ELE limitation raise Appel- signal’ Br. of treating 'predetermined of the claim.” "[b]y tively it out reads happens including power Mfg. Corp. AC Shanghai whatever lant power building the local at a arrive B “load terminals” to mean pairs “four of electrical contacts that can separate from each other to inter- Trimone argues its 2006 rupt the flow electricity.” Initial Deter- GFCIs not satisfy do the “four sets of mination, slip op. at 89. The partial figure interrupting contacts are configured below, taken from Figure 1 of the '340 to provide electrical continuity between the patent, shows a circuit interrupter, indicat- line terminals and the load terminals in a ed label number having pairs four reset state and configured to interrupt of electrical contacts—two on the line ter- electrical continuity in tripped state” limi (line minal side of the circuit terminals to tation of The ALJ con the left shown) side the figure not strued “four sets of interrupting contacts” two on the load terminal side of circuit. *7 Patent, Figure (partial)
'SI0 terminals and the load terminals in a reset state and configured to interrupt The other disclosed GFCI embodiments in electrical continuity in tripped state” limi- patent all have the same basic tation of patent the '340 because its GFCIs circuit interrupter. have only two sets of contacts configured to make or break the circuit between argues Trimone that its 2006 GFCI de- line terminals and the load terminals. The vices do satisfy the “four of inter- sets figure below shows Trimone’s circuit inter- rupting contacts that are (the rupter wires the lower left of the provide continuity electrical between the figure terminals). lead to the line termi- the load clearly label all Interrupter Circuit 2006 GFCI Trimone outlets, receptacle from the separately nals it was error that asserts Trimone Figure 1 above. portion as seen of contacts sets the two to count ALJ termi- the line between GFCIs expert Trimone’s testimo that have held We outlets —the receptacle the GFCI “to nals and a court assisting be useful ny can the GFCI face of sockets on pat electrical in the term particular that establish satisfied, limitation finding the device—in in the meaning particular ... has ent ter- not load are outlets receptacle because at F.3d Phillips, field.” pertinent Sey- and Pass & The Commission minals. However, cautioned we have outlets receptacle respond mour ex assertions unsupported “conclusory, terminals”; as “user load known also a claim term the definition as to perts art would in the ordinary skill someone The testi court.” Id. to a useful are not type to be outlets receptacle understand reveal ALJ does not byon mony relied any terminal; devices load a par had terminals” “load term con- GFCI, including those to a connected included the art meaning in ticular outlets, are consid- receptacle nected experts None of outlets. receptacle thus whether The issue art, ered “loads.” in the meaning particular identified pat- in the '340 “load terminals” the term understanding subjective expert’s and an outlets.4 ent includes irrelevant. See term of a Wright Med. v. Osteonics Howmedica A patent itself. startWe *8 (Fed.Cir. 1337, n.& 5 1347 Tech., 540 F.3d single best “is the specification patent’s subjective 2008) inventor’s (holding term.” disputed meaning of guide to irrelevant, but a term using in intent 1303, 415 F.3d Corp., v. AWH Phillips expert testify as an may inventor banc) (en Vi (Fed.Cir.2005) (quoting 1315 meaning particular established on the Inc., 90 F.3d Corp. Conceptronic, v. tronics art); Symantec in the relevant terms (Fed.Cir.1996)) mark (quotation 1576, 1582 Int’l, F.3d 522 Assocs. Computer v. Corp. omitted). never describes The '340 ex (Fed.Cir.2008) (disregarding 1279, 1291 terminals. as load outlets how “simply recite[d] testimony that pert in the drawings diagram fact, circuit patent does (“Notably, '340 44-45 Corp. 2006 to ELE’s applies also issue 4. This the downstream contemplate separating not GFCIs, already do concluded we have ('face') load the surface terminals from load Contrary to the infringe patent. not in ELE's as is done receptacle terminals or dissent, issue. terminal load raises the GFCIs.”). Mfg. Shanghai ELE Appellant See Br.
13H each expert would construe term ... [a] the meaning of the term “load terminals” based on his reading own specifica- apparent from the face of the patent. tion” because it did “not identify the ‘ac- Therefore, the ALJ in erred construing cepted meaning in the to one field’ skilled the term “load terminals” to also include art”); in Co., Sinorgchem Shandong v. receptacle outlets. result, As a under the Comm’n, Int’l Trade 511 F.3d proper construction of terminals,” “load (Fed.Cir.2007) (“We n. 3 attribute no Trimone’s 2006 GFCIs and ELE’s 2006 weight to that testimony because the ex- GFCIs have only two “sets of interrupting perts did not identify any evidence that contacts that to provide those skilled in the art recognize would electrical continuity between the line ter- amount,’ ‘controlled or any term in used minals and the load terminals in a specification, reset has an accepted meaning state and configured in the field chemistry. interrupt the elec- Under such circumstances, trical continuity in testimony state,” tripped as how one and do skilled in the art interpret infringe would lan- asserted claims of the '340 in guage specification patent. entitled to
little or weight.”). no II
Moreover, The '398 Patent contrary to the ALJ’s unsup- ported conclusion, experts here never The Commission found that GPG’s suggested that receptacle outlets, which 2006 GFCIs infringe claims 1 and 7 of the they also “user called load terminals” or patent. argues GPG that the struc “user accessible terminals,” load be could ture in its 2006 GFCIs for performing the referred to simply load terminals. function of the “latching means” in claims Rather, they were fastidious referring and is substantially different from that separate them as elements. See J.A. disclosed 40,377 (testimony of Seymour Pass & wit- Osterbrock) (“The ness Jim design G4 discloses sep- a new mechan- arates ical terminals from the load architecture for a GFCI receptacle, terminals and user accessible load termi- detailed descriptions improved of an nals.”); 40,378 (“[W]e id. at differentiate system contact that can move between a by calling them load terminals and user circuit-making position and a circuit-break- terminals.”); accessible load 40,938 id. at ing position. The invention involves fixed (testimony of Shanghai Meihao Electric contacts on the line terminal side of the expert Horenstein) Co. Dr. Mark (agree- device and fixed contacts on the load ter- ing that “receptacles are also referred to device, minal side of the separated by a terminals”). user accessible load break the device can be testimony by Harman Dr. relied on completed by a moveable conducting mem- ALJ does not mention receptacle outlets ber reset, when the device is or user load terminals at all. See at id. circuit-making, state. The claims use *9 40,408. Furthermore, of usage the term means-plus-function language to define “user load terminals” to to receptacle refer elements, several pursuant to 35 U.S.C. in outlets other patents not help the ¶ § 112 6. Claim representative: 1 is patentee here. There is no evidence that a ground 1. A interrupter fault (gfi) person of ordinary skill in the art would wiring device for in connection an elec- read the term “load terminals” to also circuit, trical said device comprising: outlets, include or user load ter- minals, a) and there is in the nothing housing extrin- means defining an en- sic evidence in any way that contradicts space; closed Papers Sales, v. Control Inc. Kemco see termi- of
b) pair electrical one at least (Fed.Cir.2000) 1352, 1364 Co., rela- 208 F.3d spaced in supported fixedly nals infringe, literally space; to in order (stating enclosed within said tion the either be conducting must electrically accused structure “the c) unitary, a a spaced of or be a carrying pair structure as the disclosed same member contacts; i.e., ‘equivalent,’ paragraph electrical section (2) conduct- d) for said function and means (1) the identical mounting perform movement permit to with ing insubstantially member different be otherwise position, first a between structure”). thereof to respect in are contacts of pair said wherein function The ALJ concluded circuit-making engagement respective, retaining “releasably latching means the terminals, and a sec- pair said with posi- first the member in conducting the pair said both wherein position, ond in described the structure tion,” and that circuit- spaced, in contacts func- to that corresponding patent termi- pair of to said relation breaking the a hole in through passing nals; pin is “a tion cooperates shoulder having a said conduct- block e) urging biasing means to said latch member the movement a hole in toward with ing member the con- to retain pin the position; biasing spring second position, in the first releasably f) ducting retain- member means latching in said Determina- conducting member thereof.” Final ing equivalents said this construc- tion, at 10. Under position; slip op. first releasing [GPG’s said that “because tion, ALJ means actuating g) biasing capable said permit magnet to contain latching means GFCIs] conducting mem- said to move is attached means an armature that retaining ” response in position means,’ said second be- ber ‘mounting the GFCI’s condition fault is retained armature “[w]hen cause circuit. electrical said in a member is conducting magnet, add- (emphasis respect 11.24-46 (circuit-making) position col.13 first here is ed). terminals,” at issue The element the GPG GFCIs pair of to the is a Claim element. “latching latching means” means the function satisfy requires also claim dependent equivalent a structural and contain element. “latching means” same disclosed structure latching means Determination, Initial patent. See infringement “Literal requires op. limitation at 66. slip means-plus-funetion in the accused structure the relevant modify not did The Commission function recit identical perform device function, it did but definition ALJ’s equiva identical and be the claim ed in “to include structure modify the identified corresponding structure lent to only the member,’ entire ‘latch Res. v. U.S. Applied Med. specification.” Determination, slip therein.” Final hole (Fed. 1324, 1333 F.3d Corp., 448 Surgical modifying the structure 11. Despite op. at de Cir.2006). accused A structure means, the latching to the corresponding corre equivalent vice constitutes finding the ALJ’s upheld only the if in the structure sponding *10 structural contain 2006 GFCIs GPG’s the identical performs structure accused in identified the structure equivalents way, substantially the same “in function id. at See Id.-, patent. '398 result.” substantially the same
1313 argues GPG that in structure its in GFCIs the late 1990s”); 1980s and id. at performs 2006 GFCIs the function of the 40,979 (testimony of GPG expert Dr. latching means in a substantially different James Roberge) (agreeing permanent that way than the structure disclosed in the magnets had been used in “latching re- patent. structure, '398 GPG’s as the ALJ lays” in the electrical industry to perform noted, only uses magnet in order to functions). latching This testimony “goes retain the contacts of the conducting mem- to the function or result of systems, these first, in ber circuit-making position. begs and the issue of way in which [the contrast, the disclosed structure in the systems mechanical] and [magnetic] sys- '398 employs a mechanical solution tems actually Toro, work.” 355 F.3d at requiring the interaction of a number of 1324. We therefore hold that substantial separate parts, including spring latching evidence does not support the Commis- member, pina with a extending shoulder sion’s finding that magnetic latching through a hole in spring latching mem- structure of GPG’s 2006 GFCI equiva- ber, and a spring biasing pin pull lent to the mechanical structure disclosed against the force of spring latching '398 corresponding to the member. latching means. Co., As we held in Toro v.Co. Deere & (Fed.Cir.2004), F.3d 1313 one system Conclusion that accomplishes a function mechanically For the reasons, aforementioned we re- and system another accomplishes that verse the Commissions findings same using magnetic function force “func- GPG’s 2003 GFCIs infringe claims and tion fundamentally ways.” different Id. 18 of the '340 patent; that GPG’s 2006 at 1324. The Sey- Commission Pass & infringe GFCIs claims 1 and 7 of the mour argue that the ALJ’s decision was patent and claims 14 and 18 of the supported by substantial evidence because patent; Trimone’s testimony of in- GFCIs expert witnesses that fringe ordinary one of claims 14 skill in the 18 of patent; art would the '340 have magnetic considered matching ELE’s 2006 struc- GFCIs infringe ture to be interchangeable 14, 18, with the me- claims patent. chanical structure of the See We remand to the Commission modify Determination, Initial slip op. at 67. its limited exclusion order in accordance However, experts merely testified opinion. with this magnets were latches, well known as PART, AFFIRMED IN REVERSED they performed the latching means PART, IN and REMANDED function in substantially the same way as the mechanical latch pat- disclosed Costs ent. 40,524 See J.A. (testimony of Pass & No costs. Seymour Stolfi) (“The expert Dr. Fred use of a magnet as a fairly latch is common in NEWMAN, Circuit Judge, dissenting. other know, devices. You example like all respect With my colleagues on this a door latch often a magnet has catch. panel, they have erred in law and proce- And patents [are] there that I have looked dure, in their of the findings at that reversal speak magnetic about a latch in a rulings of ....”); 40,750 GFCI Commission on id. at the issues (testimony of presented in expert Kenneth Eugene appeal. The Haynes) (agreeing that “permanent magnets infringement were some of the Ground known in the art of latching and Fault structures Circuit Interrupters of respon- some *11 court’s to the respond to the Commission Circuit Fault dents, Ground In re Certain must, I adjudications. Same, and arguments new Containing Prods. and Interrupters dissent. respectfully, 337-TA-615, 2009 WL Inv. No. 9, 2009), affirm- (Int’l Mar. Comm’n Trade Discussion findings and the modifications
ing Shanghai re Certain In are appellants the ALJ three rulings of The (“ELE”), Interrupters and General Manufacturing Corp. Fault Circuit Ground Same, No. 337- (“GPG”), Inv. and Wenzhou Containing Group Products Protecht Sept. (Int’l Electric Technology Comm’n Trade and Science TA-615 Trimone “I.D.”). The or 2008) (“Initial (“Trimone”). claim elements Decision” Co. the Com- and the pages colleagues of reverse my Initial Decision upon pages of 32 rulings and circuit” supplemental mission’s are the “detection understanding of the tech- and patent, a full present of the '340 terminals” “load the evi- of discussion rigorous nology, with of the '398 means” “latching the findings, and analysis, and extensive dence A its own finds now This court conclusions. not raised
facts, theories were applies ... circuit patent: “detection of standards incorrect uses by party, any predetermined generate a to tech- own electrical review, its and creates signal” and unchal- uniform contrary nology of infringement The Commission testimony. lenged expert model of by the 2006 patent decided cross-appeal companion In the (“Inter- Interrupter Fault Circuit Ground Nos. Appeal opinion, today by separate “GFCI”) ELE, 2003 and or rupter” -1369, patentee 2009-1338, taken GPG, model the 2006 models Commission’s from the Seymour Pass & representative; 14 is Claim of Trimone. it, deferential- the court rulings adverse at is: the clause issue findings of ly Commission’s affirms a including detection circuit least one at my appeal in this while non-infringement, coupled between segment Com- act de novo reverse colleagues a generate terminals In re- findings infringement. mission’s to de- response signal in Commission, court versing wiring condition.... tecting proper a sup- evidence the substantial not discuss ALJ heard 11.9-12.The col.10 findings. the Commission’s porting par- for all expert witnesses testimony of appeal, companion to the contrast ‘detec- concept of ties, that “the and found APA re- standards bypasses court in the context is well understood tion’ rulings finding and view, new and makes a circuit reacts regard, In that circuits. theories, were some which on new stimulus.” particular way to particular by any party, argued and not presented Pass & testimony of (citing at 85 I.D. incorrect. conspicuously and which Harman,1 Tr. Hr’g Dr. Seymour’s expert con- in claim changes Further, its despite 40444-45). 1036:20-1040:13, Exten- J.A. de its novo struction, findings, and its new cir- the detection testimony concerned fact, pro- court sive of law applications cuitry as described patentee opportunity no vides engineering, electrical is in Ph.D. University Harman’s of Hous- Harman 1. Thomas who wrote electrician he is master committee expert to the special ton is Id. Code.” National Electrical to the dealing with “Guide house Code Electrical National 40385-86. at 40385. Dr. J.A. wiring safety devices. *12 as embodied in each of the accused circuit trips the Interrupter until a predeter- interrupters. The ALJ infringe- mined signal provided is indicates element, ment as to this upon the same proper wiring. The predetermined signal findings and arguments adopted now by is an electrical signal that cuts off the my colleagues contrary effect. Howev- path that was causing repeated er, sufficient evidence to reverse these tripping of device. patent Figure 4, findings rulings has not been shown. below, shown the detection circuit consists
The '340 describes pro- SI, miswire of switch FI, fuse and resistors RIO through tection circuitry that repeatedly and R13: Patent, Figure properly wired, k device is allowed to be reset. The embodiment in Figure shown current
When flows through the detection of the '340 patent illustrates the same circuit to gate 404, rectifier principle, where the circuit trips in re- trip by device will energizing solenoid sponse to a simulated fault that is present opens interrupting contacts 408. until proper wiring has cleared the resis- col.7 11.11-16. power When is elements, tive thereby permitting reset- correctly wired to terminals, the line cur- ting. See id. 4col. 11.9-67. passes rent through the detection circuit regardless of whether the interrupting The experts agreed on technology contacts open 408 are or closed. With set forth in the patent and as embodied in correct wiring, current will continue to the devices that the Commission found to flow “until such time clears, FI fuse be infringing. In ELE’s device the reset after which it possible is to accomplish a until, button is blocked power when is resetting of the interrupting contacts correctly 408.” terminals, to the line wired cur- Id. col. 7 11.24-26.The '340 specification passes rent through a circuit segment that explains that the detection circuit signals uses a solenoid that unblocks reset power from the line terminal to create a button. See signal J.A. 56301-09. The response, and this response present only produced power if is incorrectly wired. when the properly device is wired. When Dr. Harman explained portion *13 40969-70, swired,” (citing J.A. Br. 36 GPG provide to circuitry ELE the Roberge). expert Dr. testimony of GPG properly is device the when signal the not take that “GPG does also states '340 GPG circuit detection is the
wired the ID’s used in the words that al- issue signal the generates and patent, ” GPG circuit.’ ‘detection construction Hr’g Tr. reset. See to be the device lows colleagues ne- Nonetheless, my Br. 844:13-850:6,J.A. 40396-97. This construction. Commission’s gate the the ELE found that The Commission con- Commission’s the inappropriate, is circuit that has a detection indeed device experts the disputed, not is struction at 91. “This I.D. See signal. a generates agreed. signal predetermined a provides on non-infringement argue did GPG signal does wiring, and this proper upon contending construction, Commission’s Id. The condition.” a fault simulate not because one infringe do not its that GFCIs ELE’s de- allows signal that presence protec theoretically miswire avoid could and claimed reset, as described to be vice buy a expedient: following by the tion Reversing the Com- in the '340 state), (sold the tripped GFCI GPG the ELE find that mission, colleagues my it, it, then unin reset wire wiring properly detect whether not does device that the argued it. GPG stall miswire predetermined a generate proper is pre a generate “configured clause claim find that my colleagues response; signal detecting response signal voltage determined line available uses the simply condition,” occurs wiring proper a prop- when reset be device to to allow the ato are connected the line terminals when However, the Commission wired. erly if infringed is not power, source AC state is the reset found, device in ELE’s is power when the AC sent can be signal a properly from power until prevented GPG terminals. See the load a connected to energize is used terminal line wired Commission found that block, Br. 35-36. requiring moves that solenoid infringement. not avoid theory did this wiring. Substantial proper detection Techs., Inc. v. (citing n. 23 at 99 & I.D. find- z4. Commission’s supports evidence (Fed. 1340, 1350 507 F.3d Corp., “detec- meets ELE device that the ing Microsoft Cir.2007) not (“[Ijnfringement is avoided signal” “predetermined circuit” tion mode of non-infringing a merely because no other Indeed the claims. limitations Blount, Golden possible.”); operation is purpose that is the finding plausible; is Co., 438 F.3d H. Peterson v. Robert explain not Inc. colleagues do My device. (“[I]t (Fed.Cir.2006) matters 1354, 1363 find- Commission’s rejection their can be ma device the assembled that for not no basis indeed, discern I can ings, configura non-infringing a into nipulated rejection. such tion.”)). also sustained The Commission GPG’s explained witnesses to the GPG respect findings with ALJ’s until prevented is reset state if is devices power explained, As GPG devices. terminal properly a wired terminals, power to the line connected properly that resets energize solenoid is used pushed is button the reset then when “it The Commission device. resets energized solenoid” “reset the contacts to close possible is not Br. 15-16. GPG See GPG device. predetermined without the GFCI reset Interrupters gen- its dispute that not GPG describes at 97. While I.D. signal.” GPG states signal. predetermined erate “inherent” of its device as operation signal “the in its brief deter- the Commission protection, miswire mi- products GPG’s when generated mined that this is not different from signal that originates from the line termi- detection, claimed for the circuit generates nal is generated not by the detection cir- signal only when power is properly con- cuit and thus is “generated.” not See Maj. I.D. nected to the line terminals. at 97-98. (“The Op. at 1308 identified circuit does generate
My colleagues current; do not discuss the it sup- is the current port for the findings Commission’s comes from power AC connec- *14 ELE tion.”). and Interrupters GPG have a detec- There is support no for this theo- tion circuit generates that a predetermined ry. only The signal generated in response signal in response to proper wiring. to proper wiring as described in the '340 systems require These detection proper of “generated” is in the way same wiring generation and of a in the devices, accused is, that the detec- signal Instead, in response. the court cre- tion power uses from the properly own, flawed, ates its definition of “gener- wired line terminals to supply a signal ate,” and finds non-infringement by ELE (claim 14) (claim or 30) response that al- and GPG based on this definition. Howev- lows the device to be reset. That is how er, the “generate” definition of was not Commission, the parties, and the interpret- disputed by any party before the Commis- ed the term. The court’s interpreta- new sion; thus the record sparse and argu- tion “generate” was not debated and is ment is nil.2 expert The witnesses all not briefed. understood the term in the way, same and On the record and proceedings the directed testimony them to their opinions Commission, substantial supports evidence as to whether the infringed. term was the Commission’s findings and rulings as Thus the ELE expert opinion was the to this claim clause. The court’s reversal that the ELE device generate does not of the Commission is unwarranted. At a “predetermined signal” because minimum, (incorrect) this new definition device does not sense current threshold requires remand for the views of the par- or However, time threshold. ELE’s ex- ties and the Commission. pert admitted that the ELE circuit creates (i.e., generates) a current. J.A. 40818 B (“Shanghai ELE ... uses simply the avail- patent: The “interrupting current....”). contacts voltage able line to create ... load terminals” panel majority The does not discuss this evidence. Another finding on the court im-
Instead, court a theory properly creates reverses the Commission relates proposed any party, and rules that a to the claim clause: 2. The panel majority at 3 disputes footnote the statement "[i]n order find issue, whether citing ELE raised the 'predetermined GFCIs, signal' ELE’s in ELE's 2006 "[b]y statement in its brief treating merely disregards per- Commission 'predetermined signal’ including spective disregards whatever teachings of the power happens AC building at a specification arrive patent's meaning about power plant, from the local "predetermined.” ELE Br. 42. The ma- has beyond broadened this jority apparently limitation all rec- any not credit of ELE's ognition effectively arguments regarding "predetermined” it out reads event, signal. claim.” context any of this statement reveals nature of issue is only that ELE "pre- argument, was concerned with the not waiver of the but rather signal determined” nature complete any disagreement and whether lack of among any parties it is used to differentiate between or correct regarding "gener- the term ate,” wiring. incorrect The sentence contrary ELE’s to this court's sua sponte defi- quoted by majority brief preceded by nition. in- may typically circuits electric including assembly
interrupting contact outlets receptacle or more clude one interrupting contacts four sets to one power transmit AC may further con- provide electrical configured devices, electrically powered more or tinuity the line terminals between as load to in the art commonly referred terminals in a reset state the load provide outlets receptacle circuits. The the electrical interrupt in- power to user-accessible loads .... tripped state continuity plug, plug power clude cord and The Commis- 11.17-22. col. 10 into the out- being insertable as “four element this claim sion construed let. sepa- that can contacts pairs of electrical recep- disputes No one 11.27-33. Col.l interrupt the flow from each other rate electri- to in the are referred tacle outlets I.D. at 89. expert, ELE’s electricity,” “user- *15 load terminals” cal art as “user Interrupters that ELE’s Engel, Dr. stated Multiple wit- terminals.” accessible load “absolutely” interrupting “four have sets in- terminals” that “load nesses testified meaning of that plain contacts under such load terminals clude user-accessible The Commission’s J.A. 40840. phrase.” outlets, re- receptacle explaining as by supported substantial findings are well spe- more ceptacle outlets are sometimes evidence. to as “user load termi- cifically referred load terminals.” “user-accessible disputes that nals” or ELE nor Trimone Neither Horenstein, testifying on expert Dr. interrupting sets of have four its devices Meihao, stated respondent behalf How- the line load. contacts between referred to as user “receptacles are also of these ever, two the court holds that terminals,” Dr. J.A. 40938. accessible load termi- connected to “load not contacts are “the terminals load explained Harman The '340 required by the claim. nals” as any other de- be the terminals would purpose explains specification be appliances that would vices or outlets Interrupter is Fault Circuit the Ground device,” 40408; “The J.A. to the connected terminals, by from the load power remove side load and right labeled loads are on the power interrupting the circuit from ELE’s ex- J.A. 40401. receptacle,” outlet (“Circuit patent col.2 11.8-10 source. testified witness, Engel, likewise Dr. pert by open- typically is effected interruption “there, are two load design that in ELE’s disposed between ing a set contacts Honor, terminals, this, Your shows so load.”). person A and the power source receptacle or a load termi- going wire to a in this field would under- ordinary skill device, and the face of the nal available on contact as- “interrupting stand that going to a load terminal this shows a wire in- configured to the clause is sembly” of on side of the J.A. available device.” power continuity terrupt between argue that ELE does not terminals) (the and load termi- source not include terminals” do claimed “load outlets. receptacle nals such as receptacle such load terminals user patent.3 in the '340 outlets shown patent states: The '340 recepta- include do not "load terminals” states that majority at footnote 4 3. The Indeed, above-quoted portion issue” "raises the load terminal cle outlets. indeed patent does are stating accepts receptacles brief that the '340 its ELE brief load separation terminals, of "the downstream show expert not con- load ELE's surface ('face') load or from the surface terminals ceded, testimony of other with the consistent terminals,” Notably ELE Br. 44. experts. any suggestion the ELE briefs is absent from Contrary to this unanimity of experts, by wiring GFCI power AC to the out- colleagues my dispose of the experts with lets/receptacles preclude not them the statement that “an expert’s subjective being considered ‘load terminals’ in understanding of a term is irrele- the context of miswiring protection.” I.D. However, vant.” an expert’s testimony (citations omitted). at 89 concerning the definition of a technological It is simply incorrect for this court now term his expertise field of highly is to hold that “load terminals” exclude user relevant. objective An definition of a term load terminals. The finding Commission’s of electrical art is “subjective under- of infringement by the user terminals load standing.” is supported by evidence; substantial The Commission accepted the uniform contrary court’s finding totally devoid of extrinsic and evidence, intrinsic pro- support. I again must my dissent from ceeded on premise that “user load colleagues’ refusal apply the proper terminals” form of “load terminal.” standard of review and failure to credit the panel Yet the majority now reverses the Commission’s correct rulings and findings. Commission and rules that “load termi- nals” excludes “user load terminals.” This C ruling contrary to the specifica- *16 patent: The “latching '398 means” contrary tion and to the entire record. panel majority, seeking support, sim- not dispute its devices argues ply that the experts were “fastidi- embody this element of the patent. '398 in referring ous” to “user load terminals” The found, Commission applying 35 U.S.C. separately from terminals,” “load Maj. Op. ¶ 6, § 112 that GPG’s 2006 Interrupter 1311, at and indeed experts the differenti- includes latching structure equivalent to ated the general broader term termi- “load described the patent. '398 Al- nal” from the more specific “user load though this is finding supported by sub- terminal” such receptacle outlets. No evidence, stantial panel the majority re- except one this court proposes that “load jects it. terminal” by definition excludes user load Claim 1 of the patent '398 includes the terminals. following clauses: The Commission discussed Trimone’s at- f) latching releasably means retaining torney argument that, despite this uncon- said conducting member in said first troverted understanding usage, and the position; and patent '340 claims exclude out- g) actuating means for releasing said lets the scope of “load terminal.” latching means permit said biasing The Commission heard argument, and means to move said conducting member found no distinction between the meaning to said position second in response ato of “load terminals” in this electrical tech- predetermined fault condition in said nology and the “load terminals” described electrical circuit. and claimed in the The Com- rejected mission patent argument, Trimone’s col.13 and 11.41-46.The posi- “first declined to tion” remove is “user load a “circuit-making” terminals” position in from the of scope “load terminals.” the conducting completes member Commission explained that “the testimony the Ground Fault Circuit of multiple witnesses confirms Interrupter, that out- allowing power to be deliv- lets/receptacles have load terminals. The ered from line to load. The “second posi- fact that one would be unlikely to miswire tion” is the circuit-breaking position. The pro- a This was not at 1324. ways.” Id. latch- mechanical a describes mechanical-mag- law for all pin of a of shoulder nouncement wherein ing structure of that the con- the facts On connected latch netic substitutions. on a catches that trav- member, spring a biases case, camfollower the mechanical ducting into conducting member to lift a latch member in the Toro slope, a used els the latch If position. first in a designated operate stem, was found valve the latch will bias spring disengaged, mag- is way from substantially different into conducting member and the member create a by Deere used netic solenoid circuit-breaking position. liquid a open pulls force magnetic per- a Interrupter uses in Toro affirmed The GPG This court Id. valve. conducting hold magnet non-equivalency manent finding district court’s against position, in the first member estab- court did not system; for found The Commission spring. of a bias non-equivalence law a lish universal ¶ The § 112 6. in terms infringement mechanical/magnetic and all systems all evidence received facts. mechanical interchangeability known to be fact question Equivalence latches, expert tes- including magnetic pat context of “against the determined “speak about patents art timony prior cir art, particular ent, the prior 40524, GFCI,” latch in a J.A. magnetic Tank & case.” Graver cumstances as a latch magnet use of that “[t]he Co., 339 U.S. Air Prods. Linde Mfg. Co. v. devices,” id. other fairly common 854, L.Ed. 1097 609, 605, 70 S.Ct. that “at fact The Commission (1950). in Warner-Jenkin explained As patent, person of the '398 the filing Co., 520 Chemical Hilton Davis Co. v. son have consid- art would ordinary skill L.Ed.2d 17, 36, 117 S.Ct. U.S. in the latching structure magnetic ered the *17 interchangeability (1997), “known interchangeable be GFCIs to GPG 2006 a patent an element for substitutes in claim ‘latching means’ recited noted objective factors express one of the explained The Commission 1.” I.D. at 67. whether bearing upon Tank by Graver the mechanical that in devices these substantially the device substantially the the accused work latches magnetic Substan invention.” patented the force cases same way, for both same the bias- the Commission’s magnet supports overcomes pin or tial evidence conducting con Interrupter to hold ing spring force of GPG’s finding circuit-making position. latching in the members equivalent tains structure I.D. at 66-67. means described contrary evidence. no There was find- rejects the Commission’s
The court discussing the without ing equivalency, disregard panel on this colleagues My In- finding. against this evidence the Commis- findings of rulings never can that there stead, the court rules findings rules sion, de novo and render latch a mechanical between equivalence be have parties to which new theories on v.Co. latch, misciting Toro magnetic This is an respond. no opportunity had (Fed.Cir.2004). Co., 355 F.3d Deere & process. appellate inappropriate re- colleagues My not so hold. Toro did dissent. respectfully I quotation Toro’s its context move from Deere, viz. of the defendant argument difference contends “Deere clause systems accomplish two
means the different fundamentally
(e)’s function