*1 had no unused sick Billinger cialist system. leave under a formal
leave covered reasons, we conclude
For these was program sick leave
Joint Committee’s un- system, and that leave formal be included in the sick leave should
used an- Billinger’s retirement
computation under the CSRS.
nuity
CONCLUSION Bil- concluding erred in
The Board his unused entitled to have
linger computation
sick leave included annuity. Accordingly,
his retirement and REMAND.
REVERSE CARE, INC., (formerly
ZODIAC POOL Baracuda International
known as Plaintiff-Appellant,
Corporation) INDUSTRIES, INC.,
HOFFINGER
Defendant-Cross-Appellant. 99-1224, 99-1233.
Nos. of Appeals,
United States Court
Federal Circuit.
March 2000. En
Rehearing Rehearing Banc May
Denied *2 infringement of by denying
er answered patents that both patents alleging both are invalid. Hoffinger’s motion for
Upon *3 partial for and Zodiac’s motion the district court held judgment, (1) infringe did not Hoffinger that: or under the patent literally ’068 either (2) (“DOE”); Hof- Equivalents Doctrine of patent liter- infringe did not ’382 finger (3) patent and is not invalid. ally; ’382 proceed court then allowed case The of trial on the issue After a under DOE. patent the ’382 infringed Hoffinger found that DOE, and did so patent the ’382 under in the willfully, damages it awarded $1,976,000. The then parties amount of a judgment as matter of law moved for (“JMOL”). granted Hoffinger’s The court district Kilpatrick Spangenberg, W. Caroline JMOL, finding Hoffinger for motion Atlanta, LLP, Georgia, argued Stockton patent infringe not the ’382 did on the With her plaintiff-appellant. for conditionally district court also DOE. The Russell, Mitchell G.
brief were Dean W. Hoffinger a new trial on granted Stockwell, C. Williams. and Camilla damages infringe- and trial on a new III, & Buck- Timothy Buckley Finley J. this court finds that ment the event P.C., GA, Atlanta, argued for defen- ley, Hoffinger right waived its to seek JMOL appellant. dant-cross entirety in its by renewing its motion of trial. Under at the close Fed.R.Civ.P. BRYSON, Judge, Before Circuit 50(c), judg- for “[i]f the renewed motion SKELTON, Judge, Senior Circuit and granted, ment as a matter of law is GAJARSA, Judge. Circuit a shall also rule on the motion for trial, any.” The court re- new if filed Opinion for the court Circuit fused, however, Hoffinger attor- award Judge Judge GAJARSA. Circuit ney’s fees. part BRYSON concurs and dissents parties cross-appeal. now Because part. properly district court construed GAJARSA, Judge. Circuit patent, ’382 meaning of terms Hoffinger summary judgment on awarded DECISION infringement of ’382 the issue of literal (“Zodiac”) Care, Inc. is the Zodiac Pool on the granted Hoffinger JMOL patent, 4,133,068 Patent Nos. assignee of U.S. infringement of the ’382 issue DOE (“the (“the 5,014,382 ’068 and ’382 patent”) fees, attorney Hoffinger and denied patent”). Zodiac sued court affirms. Industries, in the (“Hoffinger”) Inc. United I. District for the Northern
States Court Georgia, alleging infringement District appeal district courts did patents. alleged Zodiac further non-infringement both entry judgment of willful, Therefore, justify- is appeal Hoffing- relating limited to the issues the ’382 damages. an award of treble ing
14H (c) a vacu- a disc patent.1 surrounding The ’382 discloses flexible the water system cleaning swimming pools. um for rotably inlet and connected to the inlet comprises pool system cleaner four foot, having a peripheral edge; elements, forth in Claim of the set (d) preventing upward flexing patent: peripheral edge beyond prede- (a) forwardly body having inclined amount termined located forward of the passage therethrough; flow body and above and (b) inlet, having an inlet foot a water peripheral edge. being inlet foot attached to the system A drawing of claimed passage
connected to the flow when use, provided proximate single to a surface to be *4 cleaned; figure of the and forth patent, is set below: As patent, pool described ’382 The patent invention the ’382 offers type cleaners of the move in for keeping claimed alternative the cleaner step-wise automatically properly manner and ran- oriented and the inlet close to the target submerged weight dom fashion over surfaces surface. Instead of a and float, moves, be cleaned. invention uses an attached As cleaner tra- (13) (6) for preventing the verses from horizontal disc flex- surfaces vertical surfaces, ing upward as it moves as the across surface. well reverse. Unfortu- upward and above the nately, the cleaner often becomes unbal- disc, and is attached to anced as it around pool, leaving moves flat, cleaner. Because the disc remains away the cleaner oriented from the surface the cleaner maintains a proper orientation. away target and the cleaner inlet from the oriented, Properly the inlet remains close surface. This reduces the cleaner’s effec- surface. tiveness, unless one attaches cumber- one some side of the cleaner and Hoffinger makes and sells automatic float to the other side. the weight While pool throughout cleaners the United States problem orientation, and float solve the under the trade names “Glider” they cleaner render the more burdensome Hoffinger “Cruiser.” In Zodiac sued addition, to use. the typical disc of patent infringement. Hoffinger re- cleaner resists the movement sponded denying hinders rais- cleaner from horizontal to vertical ing patent the affirmative defenses of in- damage pools §§ surfaces and can cause validity under 35 U.S.C. 103 and (1994). vinyl with sheet liners. Although longer challenges rulings Brief these Zodiac’s Enumeration Errors that it no rulings includes court’s appeal. in this patent, represents Reply the '068 Zodiac in its patent at infringe not the ’382 Hoffinger’s devices did court granted
The district continued, its Hoffinger anything, that it did all. If summary judgment motion for prior asserted art disclosed literally infringe practiced either of the devices (the 4,023,227 Corp. Intl. See Baracuda Patent No. patents. United States Hof Indus., Inc., F.Supp.2d finger Kreepy patent”), “’227 which owned (N.D.Ga.1998).2 (“KK”) The court also held U.S.A., Krauly since Inc. has not in Hoffinger did matter of law argued also expired. Hoffinger DOE. under the fringe patent ’068 pat- KK aspects of other practiced devices granted the district court Concomitantly, ents that it has licensed. summary judgment on the issue evidence, parties both At the close of validity the ’382 and held were de- moved for JMOL. Both motions pre material fact issues of genuine nied, the case and the court submitted judgment on the issue of summary cluded found that jury. under the infringement of infringed only court further DOE. See id. The district DOE, willfully. so It then but did precluded that fact issues held damages in the amount of awarded Zodiac issue of willfulness. See $1,976million. id. verdict, parties After the both renewed *5 Thereafter, district court held a five- the Citing their motions for JMOL. all issues. day jury outstanding trial on Products, Sage Inc. v. decision in courts pat- the ’382 At issue were four claims of Inc., Industries, F.3d 44 Devon 126 1 and independent dependent ent: (Fed.Cir.1997), USPQ2d Hoffinger trial, Zodi- During claims 3 and 10. the included argued that the asserted claims ac- presented Hoffinger’s ac evidence that limitations, and “the specific structural of the four cused included each devices equivalents to doctrine of cannot used 1. In particular', limitations of claim the expand those claims to foreseeable cover witnesses, testimony jury heard from ten alterations, Hoffinger’s weight such as and viewed a demon- received exhibits arm, specifically that were not claimed videotape stration both live and on the patentee.” responded in Hoffinger operation. The devices right had waived its to renew its Hoffinger testimony other also heard and reviewed infringement JMOL motion the issue of specific evidence issue whether expressly it did not renew the because equivalent arm Hoffinger’s weight was its specificity during argument motion with (d). in set forth also after the close of evidence. Zodiac effectively Hoffinger conceded that its limit Sage asserted that Products did not three accused devices included first authority to find vig- It independent limitations of claim 1. under the DOE. denied, however, orously that its devices granted Hoffinger The district court (d): limitation, “a included fourth JMOL on issue pe- preventing upward flexing for of the DOE. The dis- ripheral edge beyond the flexible [of disc] initially trict court held that under Fed. predetermined amount located forward its preserved R.Civ.P. had and above and its right during to renew its JMOL motion peripheral edge.” Hoffinger argument to the court after the close arm produced evidence that its when specifically evidence it addressed in limitation could not function profits. Zodiac’s claim lost issue of (d), arm extended at least to because its disk, The court stated that “understood the and thus renewing to be its Rule 50 mo- inward” Defendant result, entirety, only rearguing in but argued Hoffinger, As a tion its thereof. Corporation. da formerly 2. known as the Baracu- International Zodiac was point relating profits.” patent, to the issue lost of the ’382 court’s mo Moving Hoffinger’s merits of JMOL on the of infringement tion, in court noted our holding district under the DOE and the “[bjecause Sage Products that issued [an] court’s conditional trial new Hof- rulings. limitations, patent contains clear structural finger cross-appeals the district re- court’s rely has a public right on those fusal award it attorney’s fees as conducting limits in its business activities.” surrounding claims the ’068 patent. This USPQ2d Id. at 126 F.3d at jurisdiction court has over appeals un- court then concluded that 1295(a) (1994). § der 28 U.S.C. analysis Sage “[t]he Products casts validity grave analy doubt over the II. sis and conclusion of this Court in its To establish whether an accused Summary Judgment Order.” infringes device per this court noted court’s further decision “First, two-step analysis. forms a Endo-Surgery, Ethicon Inc. v. United correctly claims must be construed to de 1309, 1321, Surgical Corp., States 149 F.3d Second, scope termine claims. USPQ2d (Fed.Cir.1998), compared the claims must be to the ac which we held that a “subtle difference cused device.” Kahn v. General Motors degree, not clear substantial difference 1472, 1476, Corp., precluded summary difference kind” (Fed.Cir.1998) (citations 1608, 1610 omit
judgment on the issue
DOE. As a
ted).
question
Claim construction is a
result,
found
the district court
that it had
law,
perform
which we
without deference
submitting
erred in
issue of
in
DOE
Cybor
to the trial court.
Corp.
See
FAS
fringement
jury.
Inc.,
1448, 1454-56,
Technologies,
conditionally
The district court also
*6
USPQ2d 1169,
(Fed.Cir.1998);
1172-75
granted
damages
a new trial on
a new
and
Instruments,
Inc.,
v.
Markman Westview
trial on
in the event
967, 979-81,
USPQ2d
that Hoffinger
court finds
had waived its
(Fed.Cir.1995),
aff'd,
1329-31
517 U.S.
right
Exercising
to seek JMOL.
its dis-
(1996).
116 S.Ct.
Zodiac now the district court’s upward flexing of venting peripheral on literal relationship a between the lo- recites a amount tation edge beyond predetermined relationship be- stop, and and the not a body edge and above cated forward peripheral portion stop. and edge a tween disagree as to whether parties edge.” Second, confirms prosecution history a stop that extends this limitation includes claimed, interpretation. originally As edge of the flexi- at to the least only a “a located stop “d” recited element disc, beyond. perhaps ble and inward of above the and forward and periphery a of the flexible disc.” The construing meaning When claim, intrin limitation under 35 may rejected consider both the court Examiner 102(b) (1994), § evidence. Intrinsic evi in fight sic and extrinsic U.S.C. itself, spec flange dence consists of the ’227 included a KK which ification, history. any prosecution “stop.” response as a that could act expert testi Extrinsic evidence includes suggestion, applicant Examiner’s dictionaries, mony, testimony, inventor distinguish the KK ’227 initially tried treatises, art cited in the prior the claim. The changing without history. The court turns prosecution Examiner, however, rejected the distinc- only the intrinsic extrinsic evidence when tion, after rejection and made the final is insufficient to establish evidence flange [the that “the noting upper meaning the asserted claim. See clear could well Kreepy Krauly patent] Corp. Conceptronic, generally Vitronics stop. Nothing in the claims function a Inc., 1576, 1582-84, relation- stop-flange periphery defines (Fed.Cir.1996). 1573, 1576-78 argued applicant.” ship argues that when Thereafter, applicant amended (d), it ignored limitation court construed stop only capable claim to include not surrounding pat- the intrinsic evidence function, performing but also (d) Zodiac, According ent. “substantially inward” of the disc’s sufficiently rigid recites a that is amendment, peripheral edge. After the prevent leading edge of a cleaner’s disc Thus, Examiner the claim. allowed flexing upward. stop may take patent only af- applicant obtained the capa- the form of mechanical structure relationship he between ter disclaimed disc, must be locat- stopping ble permitted disk’s *7 leading body. ed on front side of the the or beyond to up extend Zodiac, only importantly, Most continues noted, applicant As the himself he edge. some the structure be inside the must distinctly made the “to more disclaimer edge disc order subject applicant define matter re- Thus, prevent flexing of the disc. and to gards as the invention claim the that court Zodiac contends the district greater with structure of invention that erred when found all of struc- Applicant submits that specificity. “substantially ture must be inward of’ the stop/disk periphery define claims now a periphery. disc’s relationship Kreepy [the not disclosed First, disagree. language We of the Krauly ’227patent].” “stop limitation itself for a ... provides construction, this we find Given ... pe- inward properly granted that the district court It ripheral edge.” usage defies common infringe summary judgment of no literal a suggest that which is Upon a motion ment of the ’382 an at the time inward” of could same judgment, a district court summary for edge. extend at least to that same pleadings, depositions, “if the must decide portion long contends that as substantial interrogatories, admissions answers edge, is in fact affidavits, file, any, if together on be with the both conditions could satisfied. This contention, however, ignores genuine that limi- that is no issue as to show there
1415
ted).
par-
If no
moving
person
material fact and
reasonable
could
any
have
judgment
entitled to a
as matter
ty is
a verdict
in light
reached
for Zodiac
56(c);
R.
Pro.
see also
Fed.
Civ.
law.”
jury, Hofflnger
record before the
must
Catrett,
322,
317,
v.
477
Corp.
Celotex
U.S.
prevail.
1376,
1374,
See id.
147
at
F.3d
47
(1986).
2548,
in its without brought instruments ac credibility substituting or determinations argued a in against competitor, tion conflicting our resolutions of evidence fringement literally both under the Applied Re jury.” those Med. 1423-24, USPQ2d 44 126 F.3d at at DOE. Corp. v. Surgical sources United States 1376-77, affirming 1105. After the district court’s 1374, USPQ2d 147 47 Corp., F.3d (citations (Fed.Cir.1998) 1289, 1291 on grant summary judgment omit- the issue 1416 than “function nothing to more the claims we considered the infringement, literal abstracts, meaningful structur infringement. See id. devoid of equivalents al
issue 1424, USQP2d at 1106. could public at 44 limitations on which al 1424, Products, 126 44 rely.” F.3d at Sage that determined initially The court USPQ2d Inc. v. (citing Conopco, 1107 at arrangement claimed different patent 1556, 1562, Co., 46 F.3d May Dept. Stores in the accused than was found limitations (Fed.Cir.1994)). 1225, 1228 USPQ2d 32 recognized, “As the district device. from theory plaintiffs] each suffers [of Sage in than defendants No less either problems of two alternative one Products, pool Hoffinger and others substantially ‘at the elongated is not slot right rely on industry have a to cleaner body’ or there is no of the container top limitations activi their planning these substantially that extends first constriction were reminded in Warner ties. As we ” 1424, 126 Id. at F.3d ‘over said slot.’ Co., 29, at 117 520 S.Ct. -Jenkinson U.S. 1420, USPQ2d consider 44 at 1106. After 1040, important is ensure “[i]t Supreme ing teachings Court doctrine, to an even as application earlier decisions of Wamer-Jenkinson element, not such individual is allowed in such as Pennwalt and this court cases effectively play as to eliminate that broad Cos., Dolly, Spalding 16 Inc. Evenflo sum, agree entirety.” in its we element (Fed. 394, 400, USPQ2d 1771 that no reasonable with the district court Cir.1994), “pre we noted that DOE find that a which extends could avoiding infringer vents an accused equiva of a peripheral edge disk minor infringement by changing only inward” of lent one that of a claimed invention details insubstantial very disk. To use the words same retaining functionali while their essential Endo-Surgery, in Ethicon our decision Products, F.3d at ty.” Sage USPQ2d F.3d at at USPQ2d at 1106. The court then held stops are “not even agree that two specif bound this patentee Thus, Hoffinger close.” was entitled to escape ic could not un arrangement, and JMOL, must patent district court’s der DOE. “Because issued limitations, clear structural contains affirmed. right rely limits in public has those We further conclude conducting its business activities. This rejected properly district court Zodiac’s effectively such a court will not remove argument event designed a doctrine ” right waived its JMOL the issue Id. patent.’ ‘fraud on the at prevent renewing DOE 1425-26, 126 F.3d at motion at the close of trial. We must respect precedent Cir Eleventh no less in principles apply These same issue, cuit on this court defers because case. Zodiac argues the instant regional to the law of the circuits on mat devices, of the accused even if arms of procedural Payless ters law. See Shoe literally infringing, infringe under the source, Intl., Ltd., Inc. v. Reebok they accomplish DOE because substantial- (Fed.Cir. 985, 987, USPQ2d function, substantially ly the same 1993). “taken The Eleventh Circuit has way, same to achieve liberal view of what constitutes motion However, same like the at result. Indus., for directed verdict.” National Products, Sage *9 1545, Corp., Inc. v. Steel 781 F.2d Sharon limitations,” in- contains “clear structural (11th Cir.1986). transcript The trial cluding a limitation that the be locat- Hoffinger that did move for confirms ed inward” of the trial, emphasized at the end of JMOL con- proper of the disc. Given argument limitation, profits. on the issue lost
struction of this a verdict of Moreover, place infringement general under motion took the DOE would reduce that new trial validity the court ruled on the immediately after infringement issues of and willfulness Because we affirm district court’s a matter of law. could not be decided as JMOL, necessary is not honor, Your I think Spangenberg: propriety Ms. address the of the conditional parties probably both wish renew award of a trial. new Charles Woods Cf. (Short motions. recess their J.M.O.L. Cities/ABC, Television v. Corp. Capital taken) was Inc., (8th 869 F.2d 1157 n. 3 Cir. 1989); THE All Y’all right. wanted Elizabethtown, COURT: Johnson Town of Rule 50 motions. your (4th Cir.1986). to renew Go n. 1 Spangenberg. ahead Ms. Finally, the court acted honor, Yes, Ms. Your Spangenberg: Sir. well within its discretion in denying Hof Essentially we filed a written motion. finger’s motion for attorney’s fees. Hof position we take the that at least as to finger specifically sought fees related to infringement the issue of willfulness Zodiac’s claim the ’068 has that Plaintiff met its burden of patent. According to Hoffinger, this case of those a matter sho\ying both case,” an was “exceptional entitling it to law, and would renew our motion. we prevailing fees as a party under 35 U.S.C. right. THE All I think COURT: there (1994). § 285 “[Exceptional cases’ are issues, is a on both of those so issue normally litigation those bad faith I’ll deny motion. Mr. Thomas? those involving fraud or con inequitable honor, Mr. Your the issue Thomas: patentee procuring pat duct we profits, lost renew our motion for Prods., ent.” Cambridge Ltd. v. Penn Nu that. most That seems be the clear- trients, Inc., (Fed. 1050-51 cut in the case that’s not been Cir.1992). ... carried the Plaintiff sure, To that transcript shows coun This court reviews decision of sel for did not Hoffinger explicitly declare lower court on motion fees under for Hoffinger motion on renewed its all an abuse of discretion standard. See id. Nevertheless, in outstanding light issues. The record clear that Zodiac hired judge’s of the trial un declaration his expert an opinion filing and secured before derstanding, compelling we find no reason trial, suit. At the district court heard why Hoffinger counsel have for should em testimony expert, same and had phasized already issues have been opportunity to observe demeanor. his If upon by anything, ruled the trial court. circumstances, Under these it cannot be this would waste the court’s time and both that the “record no basis on said contains event, parties’ resources. “[i]n rationally which the district court could procedure matters trial such have made its decision or ... [that] here, judge involved the trial is entrusted judicial arbitrary, action is fanciful or with wide because he is a far discretion clearly Id. at unreasonable.” 1050. than position appellate better [the court] effect appraise improper ar gument of counsel.” Motorola Inc. v. In III. terdigital Technology Corp., 121 F.3d court prop- We conclude that the district (Fed.Cir. erly granted summary (citation 1997) omitted). issue of literal We conclude the district in- entered JMOL on the issue of
justified in granting JMOL. fringement of the ’382 under the Thus, the court need not consider the mer- DOE, Hoffinger’s request denied its of the trial court’s conditional award of Therefore, attorney’s fees. trial Rule The court also new Hoffinger’s request need not consider for a AFFIRM. *10 stantially” interpreted, be as should
COSTS “mostly,” or “largely,” mean proposes, to own costs. Each will bear its party main,” rather than “far.” “in the BRYSON, concurring in Judge, Circuit stop 1. claim. The would The dissenting part. part and envisag- the the function that serve the if it far inward of portions positioned from the es were
I dissent respectfully the dis- The needs judgment upholding stop flexible disc. edge of this court’s the no liter- summary judgment court’s edge trict the of the disc order to be near the overturning al and of “prevent- the claimed function perform doctrine infringement under the verdict of peripheral edge ing upward flexing of the I with the court’s equivalents. concur If the amount.” beyond predetermined case. of the issues in the disposition other periphery far stop is located inward the disc, edge the the of the will flex disk infringe- rulings This on both court’s restriction, creating many upward without mainly are based the ment issues the very problems of the the “sub- phrase interpretation court’s Therefore, lan- the peripheral edge [of intended to overcome. stantially inward claim inter- guage supports disc]” in claim of of the Zodiac’s flexible court, According to the the word pretation “substantially.” of the term “substantially” interpreted be must writ- description. written The The “far,” “very much” or mean so description explains ten that the “retain- inward, “very much quoted phrase means er,” stop, which forms the “is located edge of the peripheral or far inward of the adjacent edge above and short distance “substantially,” word flexible disc.” The disc,” stop “prevents and can, however, meaning: has another it ... upwardly from flexing disc relative does, “essentially, “largely,” mean or often predetermined the foot more that New “in main.” See Webster’s 20th 3,11. Thus, pat- amount.” Col. 37-39. (1988); Century Dictionary 1817 Webster’s clear is not located ent makes Dictionary New the American World peripheral edge far inward of (1962); see Language 1454 also Black’s disc, “adjacent” but to the is (6th ed.1990) (“es- Dictionary Law reason, descrip- disc. For that the written qualification, in sentially, without material interpreta- tion is with Zodiac’s consistent main”); Collegi- Ninth Webster’s New pertinent language. tion of the (1983) (“largely Dictionary ate but history. origi- prosecution 3. The As specified”); wholly that which is drafted, nally application claim 1 of the (1983) (“largely wholly but not that which language that read: “a contained specified”); York Products Inc. Cen- body, forwardly located a short dis- Center, Family tral Tractor Farm & above, of, inwardly periph- tance (Fed.Cir.1996). ery of the flexible disc.” The examiner that interpretation Under claim, rejected part ground “substantially,” phrase of the term No. peripheral anticipated that was U.S. Patent 4,023,227 mean edge of the disc” would took flexible to Chauvier. examiner mainly “mostly inward of the that a position flange protruded edge of the flexible disc.” slightly body cleaner re- “stop.” applicant Chauvier was “substantially” can Because term claim, including following wrote the have look else- meaning, either must (d): “a forward meaning where to determine which should periph- inward of above the do, in this adopted instance. When we applicant flexible ery disc.” The the claim the writ- language, we find that antici- argued that new claim was not histo- description, prosecution ten and the ry way: pated by all the same term “sub- the Chauvier point *11 “substantially” Chauvier “does not act to word flange recited understood prevent flexing predeter- the disc from “mostly” context mean rather than prevent amount.... cannot [It] mined “far,” stop because a located of far inward [ie., of sealing flange periphery edge the peripheral prevent would not upward flexing.” By flexible from disc] upward flexing peripheral edge of contrast, continued, applicant stop Thus, the disc. of interpretation Zodiac’s (d) in limitation of the new claim recited with, entirely the claim is consistent suspended “is above and not connected to compelled by, applicant’s indeed posi- flexible thus prevents [the disc] and tion before the Patent and Trademark Of- periphery flexing of flexible [the disc] fice. I claim would therefore construe 1 of upward predetermined more than a require be amount.” of mainly peripheral inward rejection in his persisted The examiner disc, edge of the flexible but not inward far including grounds, several that edge of the disc. claim anticipated by as drafted was Chau- That claim construction issue affects the vier, utility of said that “the has not disposition of infringement both literal claims,” developed been infringement of equiva- under the doctrine “[njothing stop- in the claims defines a lents in this If case. Zodiac’s claim con- flange periphery relationship argued by accepted, struction were require would interview, applicant.” telephone After a summary of no literal lim- applicant amended the language of (d) respect be with by including itation the functional lan- reversed guage preventing upward flexing “for of both accused devices. And under Zodiac’s peripheral edge beyond predeter- claim construction the arms of the amount,” by making mined the loca- clearly accused devices could be found to specific tion by reciting more equivalent stops to the claimed in it was “located forward of the I would uphold therefore and above and inward of the verdict peripheral applicant edge.” explained of equivalents doctrine and reverse the “the stop/disk claims now define a district court’s judg- periphery relationship not disclosed ment of no infringement. literal form, Chauvier.” In that amended claim was allowed. rejection
Both the in light examiner’s
Chauvier and the amendment made
applicant support interpretation Zodiac’s pertinent language. If the term interpreted inward” is MARCINKOWSKY, Arthur E. inward,” “far language mean the claim Plaintiff-Appellant, necessarily flange reads on the recited in Chauvier, flange since that far is located
inward of the Chauvi- STATES, Defendant-Appellee. UNITED Moreover, er’s flexible disc. function 99-5159. No. recited the functional clause of the performed by amended limitation was of Appeals, United States Court structure recited in the rest the limita- Federal Circuit. is, tion. That the stop was located “sub- stantially peripheral edge” March the flexible disc order to prevent upward flexing peripheral edge congruence
the disc. But that between only
structure and function if the obtains