Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_10-cv-00819/USCOURTS-casd-3_10-cv-00819-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 830
Nature of Suit: Patent
Cause of Action: 35:271 Patent Infringement

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

BAL SEAL ENGINEERING COMPANY, INC.,

a California corporation,

Civil No. 10cv819-CAB

Plaintiff,

CLAIM CONSTRUCTION ORDER FOR

v. U.S. PATENT NO. 5,160,122

JAY QIANG HUANG, an individual; and

SAINT-GOBAIN PERFORMANCE PLASTICS

CORPORATION, a California corporation,

Defendants.

Before the Court are the parties’ joint motions for claim construction for U.S. Patent No.

5,160,122 (“the ‘122 Patent "). Pursuant to the Patent Local Rules and this Court’s scheduling order, the

plaintiff Bal Seal Engineering Co., Inc., and defendants Jay Quiang Huang and Saint-Gobain

Performance Plastics Corp., submitted opening and responsive briefs and Joint Claim Construction

Charts regarding the proposed constructions for certain terms and phrases of this patent. The Court held

a claim construction hearing on March 25, 2011. 

The purpose of a claim construction hearing is to resolve “disputed meanings and technical

scope, to clarify and when necessary to explain what the patentee covered by the claims, for use in the

determination of infringement.” U.S. Surgical Corp. v. Ethicon, Inc., 103 F.3d 1554, 1568 (Fed. Cir.

1997). District courts are not required to construe every limitation present in the patent’s asserted

claims. 02 Micro Intern, Ltd. v. Beyond Innovation Technology Co., Ltd., 521 F.3d 1351, 1362 (Fed.

Case 3:10-cv-00819-CAB-RBB Document 88 Filed 08/01/11 Page 1 of 12
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

2

Cir. 2008). “When the parties present a fundamental dispute regarding the scope of a claim term, it is the

court’s duty to resolve it.” Id.

The parties identified Claims 1, 3, 5, 9, 12 and 13 of the ‘122 Patent as at issue in this litigation

and presented certain limitations of those claims for construction. Having considered the submissions of

the parties and the arguments of counsel, the Court construes the limitations at issue as set forth in the

Attachment to this Order.

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

DATED: August 1, 2011

CATHY ANN BENCIVENGO

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 3:10-cv-00819-CAB-RBB Document 88 Filed 08/01/11 Page 2 of 12
Attachment

Claim Construction for

U.S. Patent No. 5,160,122

Case 3:10-cv-00819-CAB-RBB Document 88 Filed 08/01/11 Page 3 of 12
1

Claim Construction

for U.S. Patent 5,160,122

Claim 1. A spring assembly comprising:

a plurality of coil means, interconnected with one another in a spaced-apart

relationship, for causing the spring assembly to exert a force in a loading direction

approximately normal to a tangent to a centerline of said plurality of coil means in

response to deflection of the spring assembly along said loading direction; and

elastic material means, disposed around and between said plurality of coil means

and having a hollow cross-section, for modifying the force exerted by the spring

assembly in response to deflection of the spring assembly along said loading

direction. 

Terms for Construction

A plurality of coil means, interconnected with one another in a spaced-apart relationship, for

causing the spring assembly to exert a force in a loading direction approximately normal to a

tangent to a centerline of said plurality of coil means in response to deflection of the spring

assembly along said loading direction

The Court interprets this claim language in accordance with 35 U.S.C. §112, paragraph 6

(“section 112(6)”), which states: An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a

means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts

in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure,

material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof (“means-plus-function

claim”). Laitram Corp. v. Rexnord, Inc., 939 F.2d. 1533, 1536 (Fed. Cir. 1991). A claim

limitation that actually uses the word “means” will invoke a rebuttable presumption that §112(6)

applies. Personalized Media Comm’n, LLC v. Int’l Trade Comm’n, 161 F.3d 696, 703-04 (Fed.

Cir. 1998) (“Means-plus-function claim”). Claim 1 uses the word “means” for defining a

plurality of coil means. Both parties agree the rules of section 112(6) apply. 

The language of Claim 1 includes the specific structural recitation that the means be

“interconnected with one another in a spaced-apart relationship.” This limitation of Claim 1 is

consistent with the corresponding structures for the plurality of coil means depicted in the

specification. The recitation of some structure in a means-plus-function element does not

preclude the applicability of section 112(6). Laitram Corp., 939 F.2d at 1536.

“The construction of a means-plus-function limitation includes two steps. First, [the court

determines] the claimed function. Second, [the court identifies] the corresponding structure in

the written description that performs that function.” JVW Enterprises, Inc. v. Interact

Accessories, Inc., 424 F.3d 1324, 1330 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (citation omitted). The function of the

plurality of coil means is to cause the spring assembly to exert a force in a loading direction

approximately normal to a tangent to a centerline of said plurality of coil means in response to

deflection of the spring assembly along said loading direction.

The Court looks to the specification for the corresponding structure. Figures 1, 1a and 1b show a

spring assembly with “a plurality of coils interconnected with one another in a spaced-apart

relationship” for the function described in Claim 1. Col. 4, lines 47-53. The spring assembly

may include “circular coils, not canted to a centerline thereof, or . . . canted coil assemblies.” 

Col. 4, lines 60-63. Consequently, the parties’ proposed joint construction limiting the plurality

of coil means to canted coils is too limiting.

Case 3:10-cv-00819-CAB-RBB Document 88 Filed 08/01/11 Page 4 of 12
2

The Court finds that section 112(6) applies, modifies the parties’ joint construction of a plurality

of coil means, interconnected with one another in a spaced-apart relationship, for causing

the spring assembly to exert a force in a loading direction approximately normal to a

tangent to a centerline of said plurality of coil means in response to deflection of the spring

assembly along said loading direction, and defines it as:

Two or more spaced-apart coils of a circular or canted coil spring, and equivalents

thereof. 

Elastic material means, disposed around and between said plurality of coil means and having a

hollow cross-section, for modifying the force exerted by the spring assembly in response to

deflection of the spring assembly along said loading direction

Claim 1 uses the word “means” for defining elastic material. Both parties agree the rules of

section 112(6) apply. The function of the elastic material means is for modifying the force

exerted by the spring assembly in response to deflection of the spring assembly along said

loading direction. The language of Claim 1 includes the specific structural recitation that the

means be “disposed around and between said plurality of coil means and having a hollow crosssection.” 

The Court looks to the specification for the corresponding structure. Figure 1 depicts elastic

material means disposed around and between the plurality of coils with a hollow cross-section

for the function described in Claim 1. Col. 4, lines 54-60. The elastic material, or elastomer, of

Figure 1 is described as “any synthetic or natural material capable of recovering its original size

and shape after deformation. That is, the material is resilient.” Col. 6, lines 8-12. Examples of

such resilient material are given at Col. 7, lines 57-62.

The Court finds that section 112(6) applies, modifies the parties’s joint construction of elastic

material means, disposed around and between said plurality of coil means and having a

hollow cross-section, for modifying the force exerted by the spring assembly in response to

deflection of the spring assembly along said loading direction, and defines it as: 

A resilient elastic material, and equivalents thereof.

**********

Case 3:10-cv-00819-CAB-RBB Document 88 Filed 08/01/11 Page 5 of 12
The specification at Col. 4, lines 28-25, links the structures illustrated in Figs. 24a and 24b to 1

this function. This is believed to be an error in the text of the “Brief Description of the Drawings.”

Commencing at Col. 4, line 18-22, this section of the specification describes Fig. 22 as an embodiment

of the invention with a first and second plurality of coils. Fig. 22 has only one plurality of coils. The

description at Col. 4, line 18-22 properly applies to Figs. 23a and 23b. The description in Col. 4 goes on

to compare the structures of Figs. 24a and 24b to Figs. 23a and 23b. It then concludes that Figs. 24a and

24b show the elastic material having “a substantially greater dimension than the diameter of the plurality

of coils which provides a means for positioning the plurality of coils in order that the loading direction is

approximately perpendicular to the centerline tangent.” Col. 4, lines 28-35. Figs. 24a and 24b, which in

this regard are no different than Figs. 23a and 23b, do not, however, illustrate this statement and there is

no reference to the shape of the elastic material providing a means for positioning the coils in the

detailed discussion of these figures at Col. 9, lines 5-26 to link those embodiments to this function. The

statement regarding the dimension of the elastic material providing a means for positioning at Col. 4,

lines 31-35 appears to properly apply to Figs. 25 and 27 as examples of the elastic material shaped to

position the coils. 

3

Claim 3. The spring assembly according to claim 1 or 2 wherein said elastic means include means,

defining a shape thereof, for positioning said plurality of coils in order that the loading direction is

approximately perpendicular to the centerline tangent. 

Terms for Construction

Means, defining a shape thereof, for positioning said plurality of coils in order that the loading

direction is approximately perpendicular to the centerline tangent

Claim 3 uses the word “means” for further defining the shape of elastic material means. Both

parties agree the rules of section 112(6) apply. The function of the shape of elastic material is for

positioning said plurality of coils in order that the loading direction is approximately

perpendicular to the centerline tangent.

The Court looks to the specification for the corresponding structure. The shapes of the elastic

embodied in Figs. 25 and 27 are specifically linked to the claimed function – positioning the

plurality of coils to load approximately perpendicular to the centerline tangent. Col. 9, lines 30-

36 (“the shape of the elastic which includes depending portions ... which provide a means for

positioning the plurality of coils in order that the loading direction is approximately

perpendicular to the centerline”). The specification discusses shape means that can position the

coils as described at Col. 2, lines 41-47, however the only shapes disclosed to provide this

function are those embodied in Figs. 25 and 27, which include depending portions substantially

larger than the diameter of the plurality of the coil means to effect the position the coils.1

The shape of the elastic means disclosed to position the plurality of coils, in order that the

loading direction is approximately perpendicular to the centerline tangent, is a shape in which the

elastic material includes depending portions substantially larger than the diameter of the plurality

of coils and fully surrounds the plurality of coils. 

The Court finds that section 112(6) applies, and means, defining a shape thereof, for

positioning said plurality of coils in order that the loading direction is approximately

perpendicular to the centerline tangent is defined as:

A shape that surrounds the coils and has one or more depending portions substantially

larger than the diameter of the plurality of coils, and equivalents thereof. 

The Court recognizes that this interpretation of the elastic means shape in Claim 3 essentially

mirrors the language set forth in Claim 4, which depends from Claim 3, and would therefore

appear to run afoul of the doctrine of claim differentiation. However, the presence of a dependent

Case 3:10-cv-00819-CAB-RBB Document 88 Filed 08/01/11 Page 6 of 12
4

claim that specifically claims the only disclosed structure for the means clause does not alter the

claim from which it depends from being interpreted as statutorily mandated by section 112(6). In

this case Claim 3 cannot be interpreted to cover alternative, non-disclosed structures, that are not

equivalents of the disclosed structure, just because dependent Claim 4 specifies the only

disclosed means. Laitram, 939 F.2d at 1538; Cross Medical Prod. Inc. v. Medtronic Sofamor

Danek, Inc., 424 F.3d 1293, 1303-1304 (Fed. Cir. 2005). Further, Claim 3 remains broader than

Claim 4, as Claim 3 covers equivalents, and Claim 4 does not, and is therefore different. 

Laitram, 939 F.2d at 1538.

**********

Claim 5. A spring assembly comprising:

a generally tubular shaped elastic material; and

a plurality of coil means, interconnected with one another in a spaced-apart

relationship and disposed within said generally tubular shaped elastic material, for

causing the spring assembly to exert a generally constant force in a loading direction 

approximately normal to a tangent to a centerline of said plurality of coil means in

response to deflection of the spring assembly along said loading direction, said force

being generally constant over a range of deflection of the spring assembly along the

loading direction.

Terms for Construction

Generally tubular shaped elastic material

The parties disagree as to the meaning of “generally tubular shaped.” The parties agree that

tubular should have its ordinary meaning – having the form of or consisting of a tube. 

“Generally” is given its ordinary meaning – for the most part. The parties agree that the shape is

hollow. They disagree as to the interpretation of “tube.” Defendant asserts the proper definition

is an elongated cylindrical structure. Plaintiff argues that this definition is too narrow as it would

not encompass all the embodiments of the patent, specifically Figs. 13, 25 and 27.

The Court rejects plaintiff’s argument that the “generally tubular” limitation of Claim 5 must be

interpreted broadly enough to cover all embodiments of the patent, including the distinctly nontubular, irregularly shaped elastic embodiments illustrated at Figs. 25 and 27. Independent Claim

1 does not include the limitation of a generally tubular shaped elastic material and encompasses

the irregular shapes of Figs. 25 and 27. This is further illustrated by the fact that these irregularly

shaped embodiments are more particularly covered by Claims 3 and 4, which depend from Claim

1. Similarly, the embodiment of Fig. 13, in which the elastomer is not shaped like a tube but is

disposed only on one side of the coils, is covered by independent Claim 13. The plain meaning

of tubular as set forth in Claim 5 will not be distorted so Claim 5 can read on embodiments

properly covered by other independent claims of the patent. 

The Court adopts the ordinary meaning of tube – a hollow cylindrical structure. Claims 10, 11

and 12 are dependent on Claim 5, and therefore indicate that the cylindrical structure is not

limited to a round shape (as depicted in Fig. 1), but includes an oval, or elliptically-shaped tube

(as depicted in Figs. 10, 11 and 12). Further the hollow of the tube is not limited to a round

shape (as depicted in Figs. 1b and 10), as dependent Claims 11 and 12 cover a plurality of hollow

areas and a generally rectilinear hollow center (as depicted in Figs. 11 and 12).

Case 3:10-cv-00819-CAB-RBB Document 88 Filed 08/01/11 Page 7 of 12
5

The Court defines generally tubular shaped as:

A structure that for the most part is a round, elliptical or oval cylinder, with a hollow

cross-section. 

 

A plurality of coil means, interconnected with one another in a spaced-apart relationship and

disposed within said generally tubular shaped elastic material, for causing the spring assembly to

exert a generally constant force in a loading direction approximately normal to a tangent to a

centerline of said plurality of coil means in response to deflection of the spring assembly along said

loading direction, said force being generally constant over a range of deflection of the spring

assembly along the loading direction

Claim 5 uses the word “means” for defining a plurality of coil. Both parties agree the rules of

section 112(6) apply. The function of the plurality of coil means is to cause the spring assembly

to exert a generally constant force in a loading direction approximately to normal to a tangent to a

centerline of said plurality of coil means in response to deflection of the spring assembly along

said loading direction, said force being generally constant over a range of deflection of the spring

assembly along the loading direction.

The language of Claim 5 includes the specific structural recitation that the means be

“interconnected with one another in a spaced-apart relationship and disposed within said

generally tubular shaped elastic material.” The recitation of some structure in a means-plusfunction element does not preclude the applicability of section 112(6). Laitram Corp., 939 F.2d

at 1536.

With regard to identifying the corresponding structure for the coil means, the Court looks to the

specification for the structures disposed within a generally tubular shaped elastic material and

meeting this function. Figure 1 is identified as “a spring assembly ... generally showing a

plurality of coil means disposed within an elastic material.” Col. 3, lines 23-26. The elastic

material (18) in Figure 1 is generally tubular in shape. The plurality of coils are interconnected in

a spaced-apart relationship for causing the spring assembly to exert a generally constant force in

a loading direction, normal to a tangent to a centerline. Col. 4, lines 48-53. The coils are shown

as circular, but could be canted coil assemblies. Col. 4, lines 60-63.

The Court finds that section 112(6) applies, modifies the parties’ joint construction of a plurality

of coil means, interconnected with one another in a spaced-apart relationship and disposed

within said generally tubular shaped elastic material, for causing the spring assembly to

exert a generally constant force in a loading direction approximately normal to a tangent to

a centerline of said plurality of coil means in response to deflection of the spring assembly

along said loading direction, said force being generally constant over a range of deflection

of the spring assembly along the loading direction, and defines it as:

Two or more spaced-apart coils of a circular or canted coil spring, and equivalents

thereof. 

The parties dispute the interpretation of the phrase disposed within said generally tubular shaped

elastic material. This phrase is a structural limitation that identifies which embodiments of the

patent illustrate a plurality of coil means that come within the scope of this claim.

Plaintiff contends that disposed within requires that the plurality of coil means be located or

positioned within the generally tubular shaped elastic, but elastic material is not necessarily

disposed between the coils. Plaintiff cites to Fig. 26 as an example of an embodiment in which

the coils are located within an elastic material without the material being disposed around and

between the coils. Fig. 26 is a cross-section of Fig. 25. Col. 4, lines 40-41.

Case 3:10-cv-00819-CAB-RBB Document 88 Filed 08/01/11 Page 8 of 12
6

Fig. 25 illustrates a plurality of coils 354 within elastic material 358 thereabout. Col. 9, lines 27-

30. Fig. 25 is the embodiment of Claims 3 and 4, which are dependent on Claim 1. Claim 1,

which does not require a generally tubular shape for the elastic material, identifies the elastic

material means (358 in Figs. 25 and 26) as disposed around and between the plurality of coil

means. Therefore, Plaintiff’s argument that Fig. 26 demonstrates that the language disposed

within in Claim 5 does not require the elastic material be between the coils is misplaced. 

Plaintiff also refers to the specification at Col. 2, lines 2-7, to support its argument that Fig. 26

demonstrates that disposed within does not require the elastic material be disposed between the

coils. This portion of the specification, however, is not discussing Fig. 26, but the embodiment

at Fig. 21b, in which the coil is “disposed within the elastic material in a stretched spaced-apart

relationship in which case the elastic material has sufficient resistence to hold the plurality of

coils in the stretched spaced-apart relationship.” Col. 2, lines 2-7. Fig. 21b shows a radial spring

210 stretched and filled with elastomer material 218. Col. 8, lines 32-35. Fig. 21b illustrates the

elastic material between the coils to maintain that stretched relationship. This, therefore, does

not support the plaintiff’s interpretation that disposed within should not be interpreted, as

defendants argue, to mean that the coils are embedded (or imbedded) in the elastic material such

that the material is disposed around and between the coils.

Fig. 15, however, is also a corresponding structure illustrating a plurality of coil means disposed

within a tubular shaped elastic material. In this embodiment the elastomer is described as

“coating both the inside and outside of the coil.” Col. 6, lines 64-66. The specification does not

indicate that the elastic material is around and between the coils, but rather coats the coils on the

outside and inside. Fig. 15 is described as an alternative to Fig. 16, in which the elastomer is

disposed along the outside and through the coils. Col. 6, lines 66-67.

Consequently, the Court concludes that, with respect to Claim 5, the corresponding structures

depicting a plurality of coil means disposed within the tubular shaped elastic material includes

structures in which the elastic material is present on the outside of the coil means, but is not

necessarily through (between) the coils. 

**********

Claim 9. The spring assembly according to claim 1 or 5 further comprising means for defining an open

passage through the elastic material for enabling passage of fluid therethrough.

Terms for Construction

Means for defining an open passage through the elastic material for enabling passage of fluid

therethrough

Claim 9 uses the word “means” for further defining the elastic material means such that it has an

open passage to allow fluid to pass through it. Both parties agree the rules of section 112(6)

apply. The function of the open passage in the elastic material is for enabling the passage of fluid

therethrough. 

The Court looks to the specification for the corresponding structure. The shape of the elastic

material embodied in Fig. 14 is specifically linked to the claimed function. Col. 6, lines 60-63

(“the embodiment 170 includes an open area 190 through the coils 178 in order to facilitate the

passage of fluid.”) Fig. 14 has elastic material disposed on the inside of the coil with a hollow

cross-center.

Case 3:10-cv-00819-CAB-RBB Document 88 Filed 08/01/11 Page 9 of 12
7

The Court finds that section 112(6) applies, and means defining an open passage through the

elastic material for enabling passage of fluid therethrough is defined as: 

A space in the elastic material exposing the coils that extends to the hollow cross-center.

**********

Claim 12. The spring assembly according to claim 1 or 5 wherein the coil means have an oval perimeter

and said elastic material includes means for defining a generally rectilinear hollow center portion

thereof.

Terms for Construction

Means for defining a generally rectilinear hollow center portion thereof.

Claim 12 uses the word “means” for defining a shape of the hollow center portion of the elastic

material. Both parties agree the rules of section 112(6) apply. The function of the means is to

create a generally rectilinear hollow center in the elastic material.

 The Court looks to the specification for the corresponding structure. Figure 11 depicts elastic

material with a generally rectangular, hollowed cross-sectional opening. Col. 6, lines 42-45.

The Court finds that section 112(6) applies, and adopts the parties’ joint construction of means

for defining a generally rectilinear hollow center portion thereof as:

A hollow center of the elastic material having a shape that for the most part is rectangular,

and equivalents thereof.

**********

Claim 13. A spring assembly comprising:

a plurality of coil means, interconnected with one another in a spaced-apart

relationship, for causing the spring assembly to exert a generally constant force in a

loading direction approximately normal to a tangent to a centerline of said plurality of

coil means in response to deflection of the spring in response to deflection of the spring 

assembly along said loading direction; and

elastic coating means, disposed on said plurality of coil means, for modifying the

magnitude of the generally constant force exerted by the plurality of coils in response to

deflection of the spring assembly along said loading direction. 

Terms for Construction

A plurality of coil means, interconnected with one another in a spaced-apart relationship, for

causing the spring assembly to exert a generally constant force in a loading direction

approximately normal to a tangent to a centerline of said plurality of coil means in response to

deflection of the spring in response to deflection of the spring assembly along said loading direction

Claim 13 uses the word “means” for defining a plurality of coil. Both parties agree the rules of

section 112(6) apply. The function of the plurality of coil means is to cause the spring assembly

to exert a generally constant force in a loading direction approximately to normal to a tangent to a

centerline of said plurality of coil means in response to deflection of the spring assembly along

said loading direction.

Case 3:10-cv-00819-CAB-RBB Document 88 Filed 08/01/11 Page 10 of 12
8

The language of Claim 13 includes the specific structural recitation that the means be

“interconnected with one another in a spaced-apart relationship.” The recitation of some

structure in a means-plus-function element does not preclude the applicability of section 112(6). 

Laitram Corp., 939 F.2d at 1536.

With regard to identifying the corresponding structure for the coil means, the Court looks to the

specification for the structures meeting this function. Figure 1 is identified as a spring assembly

with a plurality of coils interconnected in a spaced-apart relationship for causing the spring

assembly to exert a generally constant force in a loading direction, normal to a tangent to a

centerline. Col. 4, lines 48-53. The coils are shown as circular, but could be canted coil

assemblies. Col. 4, lines 60-63.

The Court finds that section 112(6) applies, modifies the parties’ joint construction of a plurality

of coil means, interconnected with one another in a spaced-apart relationship, for causing

the spring assembly to exert a generally constant force in a loading direction approximately

normal to a tangent to a centerline of said plurality of coil means in response to deflection

of the spring in response to deflection of the spring assembly along said loading direction,

and defines it as:

Two or more spaced-apart coils of a circular or canted coil spring, and equivalents

thereof.

Elastic coating means, disposed on said plurality of coil means, for modifying the magnitude of the

generally constant force exerted by the plurality of coils in response to deflection of the spring

assembly along said loading direction. 

Claim 13 uses the word “means” for defining elastic coating. Both parties agree the rules of

section 112(6) apply. The function of the elastic coating means is for modifying the magnitude of

the generally constant force exerted by the plurality of coils in response to deflection of the

spring assembly along said loading direction. 

The Court looks to the specification for the corresponding structure. The elastic material, or

elastomer, used in the patent is described as “any synthetic or natural material capable of

recovering its original size and shape after deformation. That is, the material is resilient.” Col. 6,

lines 8-12. Examples of such resilient material are given at Col. 7, lines 57-62.

The Court finds that section 112(6) applies, and elastic coating means, disposed on said

plurality of coil means, for modifying the magnitude of the generally constant force exerted

by the plurality of coils in response to deflection of the spring assembly along said loading

direction, is defined as:

A resilient elastic material, and equivalents thereof.

The parties dispute the interpretation of the phrase disposed on said plurality of coil means. The

phrase is a structural limitation that identifies which elastic coating means come within the scope

of this claim.

Plaintiff contends that disposed on requires that the elastic coating means be located or

positioned on the plurality of coil means, but the elastomer is not necessarily disposed between

the coils. Plaintiff again cites to Fig. 26 as support for this interpretation. For the reasons set

forth above, the Court rejects plaintiff’s analysis that Fig. 26 reveals an elastic coating that is not

between the coils.

Fig. 13, however, is a corresponding structure illustrating an elastic coating means, disposed on a

plurality of coil means. In this embodiment the elastomer is described as “disposed on one side

Case 3:10-cv-00819-CAB-RBB Document 88 Filed 08/01/11 Page 11 of 12
9

170A of coils 172A.” Col. 6, lines 52-54. The specification does not indicate that the elastic

material is around and between the coils, but rather disposed on one outer side, with no interior

elastomer. 

Consequently the Court concludes that, with respect to Claim 13, the corresponding structures

depicting a elastic coating means disposed on said plurality of coil means includes structures in

which the elastic material is present at least partially on the outside of the coil means, but is not

necessarily through (between) the coils. 

Case 3:10-cv-00819-CAB-RBB Document 88 Filed 08/01/11 Page 12 of 12