Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_12-cv-01004/USCOURTS-caed-2_12-cv-01004-8/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Advanced Steel Recovery, LLC
Counter Defendant
Jewell Attachments, LLC
Counter Claimant
Paladin Brands Group, Inc.
Defendant
X-Body Equipment, Inc.
Counter Claimant

Document Text:

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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ADVANCED STEEL RECOVERY, LLC,

 Plaintiff,

 v.

X-BODY EQUIPMENT, INC., PALADIN

BRANDS GROUP, INC., and JEWELL

ATTACHMENTS, LLC, 

 Defendants.

________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

2:12-cv-01004-GEB-DAD

CLAIM CONSTRUCTION ORDER

This order issues following consideration of each party’s

briefs and argument concerning the meaning of nine claim terms in

Plaintiff Advanced Steel Recovery, LLC’s (“Plaintiff” or “ASR”) U.S.

Patent No. 8,061,950 (“the ’950 Patent”), which is titled “Container

Packer System and Method.” 

Plaintiff alleges that Defendants infringe “one or more claims

of the ’950 [P]atent . . . [with their] container packer systems,

including the Acculoader container loader.” (Complaint ¶¶ 11, 20; ECF

No. 1.) Defendants filed answers containing non-infringement and

invalidity affirmative defenses, and counterclaims of non-infringement

and invalidity of both the ’950 Patent and U.S. Patent No. 7,744,330

(“the ’330 Patent”), of which the ’950 Patent is a continuation. (Def.

X-Body Equip., Inc.’s Answer ¶¶ 30–31, 55–62, ECF No. 9; Def. Jewell

Attachments, LLC’s Answer ¶¶ 30–31, 55–62, ECF No. 16.)

//

1

Case 2:12-cv-01004-GEB-DAD Document 45 Filed 09/09/13 Page 1 of 34
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

I. TECHNOLOGY BACKGROUND

The ’950 Patent’s background section describes the patented

technology as follows: “The present invention relates generally to

handling waste and other bulk materials, and in particular to a system

and method for packing a container with bulk material for transport.”

(’950 Patent col. 1:15–18; ECF No. 26-2.) “Heretofore there has not been

available a bulk material handling system or method with the advantages

and features of the present invention, including a container packer for

receiving the material and transferring it to a container or other

vessel for transport.” (Id. col. 1:47–51.) The ’950 Patent describes its

container packer system as including:

a transfer base, which receives a container packer

adapted for movement longitudinally between

retracted and extended positions with respect to

the transfer base. The transfer base includes a

power subsystem with a motor or engine driving an

hydraulic pump for powering hydraulic

piston-and-cylinder units of the system, including

a container packer piston-and-cylinder unit for

hydraulically extending and retracting the

container packer. The container packer generally

encloses an interior adapted for receiving bulk

material for transfer to a transport container,

which can comprise a standard shipping container, a

trailer or some other bulk material receptacle. The

container packer includes a push blade assembly

longitudinally movably mounted in its interior and

actuated by a push blade piston-and-cylinder unit. 

(Id. col. 1:55–2:3.) The ’950 Patent describes its container packer

method as follows:

[A] container packer method includes the steps of

loading the interior of the container packer with

bulk material in its retracted position on the

transfer base, locating a transport container in

alignment and behind the transfer base,

hydraulically inserting part of the container

packer into the transport container, hydraulically

emptying the container packer of bulk material into

the transport container with the push blade

assembly, retracting the push blade assembly within

2

Case 2:12-cv-01004-GEB-DAD Document 45 Filed 09/09/13 Page 2 of 34
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

the container packer and extracting the container

packer onto the transfer base.

(Id. col. 2:4–13.)

II. LEGAL STANDARD

“It is a ‘bedrock principle’ of patent law that ‘the claims of

a patent define the invention to which the patentee is entitled the

right to exclude.’” Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1312 (Fed.

Cir. 2005) (en banc) (quoting Innova/Pure Water, Inc. v. Safari Water

Filtration Sys., Inc., 381 F.3d 1111, 1115 (Fed. Cir. 2004)). “There is

a heavy presumption that claim terms are to be given their ordinary and

customary meaning.” Aventis Pharma. Inc. v. Amino Chems. Ltd., 715 F.3d

1363, 1373 (Fed. Cir. 2013) (citing Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1312–13;

Vitronics Corp. v. Conceptronic, Inc., 90 F.3d 1576, 1582 (Fed. Cir.

1996)).

Claims, however, must be construed in light of the

appropriate context in which the claim term is

used. The written description and other parts of

the specification, for example, may shed contextual

light on the plain and ordinary meaning; however,

they cannot be used to narrow a claim term to

deviate from the plain and ordinary meaning unless

the inventor acted as his own lexicographer or

intentionally disclaimed or disavowed claim scope.

The prosecution history too, as part of the

intrinsic record, has an important role in claim

construction by supplying context to the claim

language. While the prosecution history lacks the

clarity of the specification and thus is less

useful for claim construction purposes, it still

provides evidence of how the inventor intended the

term to be construed.

Id. (citations omitted) (internal quotation marks omitted). 

“We begin our claim construction analysis . . . with the words

of the claim. The claim language defines the bounds of claim scope.”

Teleflex, Inc. v. Ficosa N. Am. Corp., 299 F.3d 1313, 1324 (Fed. Cir.

2002). “[T]he ordinary meaning must be determined from the standpoint of

a person of ordinary skill in the relevant art.” Id. at 1325. “A court

3

Case 2:12-cv-01004-GEB-DAD Document 45 Filed 09/09/13 Page 3 of 34
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

construing a patent claim seeks to accord a claim the meaning it would

have to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the

invention.” Innova/Pure Water, Inc., 381 F.3d at 1116. 

The person of ordinary skill is a hypothetical

person who is presumed to be aware of all the

pertinent prior art. The actual inventor’s skill

is not determinative. Factors that may be

considered in determining level of skill include:

type of problems encountered in art; prior art

solutions to those problems; rapidity with which

innovations are made; sophistication of the

technology; and educational level of active workers

in the field. Not all such factors may be present

in every case, and one or more of them may

predominate.

Custom Accessories, Inc. v. Jeffrey-Allan Indus., Inc., 807 F.2d 955,

962-63 (Fed. Cir. 1986) (footnote omitted); see also Helifix Ltd. v.

Blok–Lok, Ltd., 208 F.3d 1339, 1347 (Fed. Cir. 2000) (stating when

fashioning the hypothetical construct of a person of ordinary skill in

the art a court should consider, inter alia, “the educational level of

the inventor; the type of problems encountered in the art; . . . the

sophistication of the technology; and the educational level of workers

in the field”). “Such person is deemed to read the words used in the

patent documents with an understanding of their meaning in the field,

and to have knowledge of any special meaning and usage in the field.”

Multiform Desiccants, Inc. v. Medzam Ltd., 133 F.3d 1473, 1477 (Fed.

Cir. 1998). “Properly viewed, the ‘ordinary meaning’ of a claim term is

its meaning to the ordinary artisan after reading the entire patent.”

Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1321. 

“In construing a claim term, . . . [i]f the claim term has a

plain and ordinary meaning, [the] inquiry ends.” Power Integrations,

Inc. v. Fairchild Semiconductor Int’l, Inc., 711 F.3d 1348, 1361 (Fed.

Cir. 2013) (citing Vitronics Corp., 90 F.3d at 1582). “In some cases,

4

Case 2:12-cv-01004-GEB-DAD Document 45 Filed 09/09/13 Page 4 of 34
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

the ordinary meaning of claim language as understood by a person of

skill in the art may be readily apparent even to lay judges, and claim

construction in such cases involves little more than the application of

the widely accepted meaning of commonly understood words.” Phillips, 415

F.3d at 1314 (citing Brown v. 3M, 265 F.3d 1349, 1352 (Fed. Cir. 2001)).

Courts “must consider the word that the inventor actually chose and use

the definitions of that term that are consistent with the written

description,” rather than replacing the inventor’s words with synonyms.

Int’l Rectifier Corp. v. IXYS Corp., 361 F.3d 1363, 1374 (Fed. Cir.

2004) (holding that district court’s claim construction that replaced a

claim term with its synonym was improper).

Further, “a sound claim construction need not always purge

every shred of ambiguity. The resolution of some line-drawing

problems-especially easy ones . . . -is properly left to the trier of

fact.” Acumed LLC v. Stryker Corp., 483 F.3d 800, 806 (Fed. Cir. 2007).

Rather, claim construction is a matter of

resolution of 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. When the parties

present a fundamental dispute regarding the scope

of a claim term, it is the court’s duty to resolve

it.

O2 Micro Int’l Ltd. v. Beyond Innovation Tech. Co., Ltd., 521 F.3d 1351,

1362 (Fed. Cir. 2008). “‘[D]etermining the meaning and scope of the

patent claims’ is a question that ‘the court, not the jury, must

resolve’ . . . .” Function Media, L.L.C. v. Google, Inc., 708 F.3d 1310,

1326 (2013) (quoting O2 Micro Int’l Ltd., 521 F.3d at 1360).

In this case, “the terminology utilized in the . . . patent

claims seems capable of being understood by a person of average

intelligence [and therefore, t]he configuration of the hypothetical

5

Case 2:12-cv-01004-GEB-DAD Document 45 Filed 09/09/13 Page 5 of 34
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

person of ordinary skill in the art [has] less significance.” Piersons

v. Quality Archery Designs, Inc., No. 3:06-CV-0408 (TJM/DEP), 2007 WL

4995439, at *6 (N.D.N.Y. Oct. 22, 2007).

“[I]n interpreting [a claim term], the court should look first

to the intrinsic evidence of record, i.e., the patent itself, including

the claims, the specification, and, if in evidence, the prosecution

history.” Vitronics Corp., 90 F.3d at 1582. “[T]he claims themselves

provide substantial guidance as to the meaning of particular claim terms

. . . [, and] the context in which a claim term is used in the asserted

claim can be highly instructive.” Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1314 (citations

omitted) (citing Vitronics Corp., 90 F.3d at 1582; ACTV, Inc. v. Walt

Disney Co., 346 F.3d 1082, 1088 (Fed. Cir. 2003)). “[T]he specification

is always highly relevant to the claim construction analysis[;] . . . it

is the single best guide to the meaning of a disputed term.” Vitronics

Corp., 90 F.3d at 1582. 

[T]he patent specification is written for a person

of skill in the art, and such a person comes to the

patent with the knowledge of what has come before.

Placed in that context, it is unnecessary to spell

out every detail of the invention in the

specification; only enough must be included to

convince a person of skill in the art that the

inventor possessed the invention and to enable such

a person to make and use the invention without

undue experimentation.

LizardTech, Inc. v. Earth Resource Mapping, PTY, Inc., 424 F.3d 1336,

1345 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (citation omitted) (citing In re GPAC Inc., 57

F.3d 1573, 1579 (Fed. Cir. 1995)). “While claim terms are understood in

light of the specification, a claim construction must not import

limitations from the specification into the claims.” Deere & Co. v. Bush

Hog, LLC, 703 F.3d 1349, 1354 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (citing Phillips, 415

F.3d at 1312–13). “While the prosecution history ‘lacks the clarity of

6

Case 2:12-cv-01004-GEB-DAD Document 45 Filed 09/09/13 Page 6 of 34
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

the specification and thus is less useful for claim construction

purposes,’ it still provides evidence of how the inventor intended the

term to be construed.” Aventis Pharma. Inc., 715 F.3d at 1373 (Fed. Cir.

2013) (citation omitted) (quoting Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1317) (citing

Lemelson v. Gen. Mills, Inc., 968 F.2d 1202, 1206 (Fed. Cir. 1992)). 

Each disputed claim term appears in both the ’950 and ’330

Patents. Since “the [’950 P]atent is a continuation of the [’330

P]atent, and their specifications are almost identical, the court will

interpret shared terms in a consistent manner.” Synvasive Corp. v.

Stryker Corp., 478 F. Supp. 2d 1193, 1200 (E.D. Cal. 2007) (citing

Arthur A. Collins, Inc. v. N. Telecom, Ltd., 216 F.3d 1042, 1044 (Fed.

Cir. 2000)); see also Network Appliance, Inc. v. Bluearc Corp., No. C

03-5665 MHP, 2004 WL 5651036, at *5 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 30, 2004) (“Where

two patents share the same written description, a common construction of

the claims of the patents is ‘appropriate.’” (quoting Arthur A. Collins,

Inc., 216 F. 3d at 1044)); NTP, Inc. v. Research in Motion, Ltd., 418

F.3d 1282, 1293 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (holding that when a “patent[] . . .

derive[s] from [a] parent application and share[s] many common terms,

[the court] must interpret the claims consistently across all asserted

patents”) (citing Microsoft Corp. v. Multi-Tech Sys., Inc., 357 F.3d

1340, 1350 (Fed. Cir. 2004); Laitram Corp. v. Morehouse Indus., Inc.,

143 F.3d 1456, 1460 & n.2 (Fed. Cir. 1998)). 

III. DISCUSSION

The parties dispute the meaning of nine claim terms. The

parties have agreed on a construction for “transport container” as

follows: “the container for moving material from one geographic location

to another,” and this construction is adopted.

7

Case 2:12-cv-01004-GEB-DAD Document 45 Filed 09/09/13 Page 7 of 34
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

Plaintiff argues that each disputed term has a “plain and

ordinary meaning” and needs no construction since each term is

“unambiguous.” (Pl.’s Opening Brief 1:24–25, 1:17–18.) Plaintiff further

argues that when “claim terms, in the context of the claim as a whole,

are clear and do not have special, technical meaning, courts need not

construe them.” (Id. 7:11–13 (citing Brown v. 3M, 265 F.3d 1349, 1352

(Fed. Cir. 2001).) Plaintiff also contends that “[m]any of Defendants’

proposed constructions import new limitations . . . while other

constructions merely replace unambiguous claim language with different

words to change the scope of the claims.” (Id. 1:12–15.) Plaintiff also

argues that “[w]hile the ’950 [P]atent describes one embodiment of the

invention, it expressly states that the specific embodiment is not

intended to be limiting but rather is a basis for teaching the patented

invention to one of ordinary skill in the art.” (Id. 5:12–14 (citing

’950 Patent cols. 2:51–59, 4:55–59; Liebel-Flarsheim Co. v. Medrad,

Inc., 358 F.3d 898, 906 (Fed. Cir. 2004)).) The referenced language in

the ’950 Patent states: 

As required, detailed embodiments of the present

invention are disclosed herein; however, it is to

be understood that the disclosed embodiments are

merely exemplary of the invention, which may be

embodied in various forms. Therefore, specific

structural and functional details disclosed herein

are not to be interpreted as limiting, but merely

as a basis for the claims and as a representative

basis for teaching one skilled in the art to

variously employ the present invention in virtually

any appropriately detailed structure.

 

(’950 Patent col. 2:51–59; see also id. col. 4:55–59 (stating materially

similar language).)

Defendants propose constructions for seven of the disputed

terms, each premised on intrinsic and extrinsic evidence. In support of

their constructions, Defendants rely on a declaration from William J.

8

Case 2:12-cv-01004-GEB-DAD Document 45 Filed 09/09/13 Page 8 of 34
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

Maul, their expert witness, (Decl. of William J. Maul in Supp. of Defs.’

Opening Brief (“Maul Decl.”), ECF No. 32-5), and dictionary definitions.

(Decl. of Robert Harkins, Exs. 5–8, ECF Nos. 32-6, 32-7, 32-8, 32-9.)

A. Proposed Constructions

Each party’s proposed construction of the seven disputed claim

terms, and support therefor, follows.

1) “Container Packer Guide”

Claim Language

(Disputed Term in

Bold)

[’950 Pat. Claims

Implicated]

Pl.’s

Proposed

Construction

& Evidence

in Support

Defs.’ Proposed Construction &

Evidence in Support

container packer

guide

Exemplary Claim

Language:

A transfer base

including

proximate and

distal ends and

a container

packer guide

said container

packer being

movable

longitudinally

along said

container packer

guide between a

retracted

position on said

transfer base

and an extended

position

extending at

least partially

from said

transfer base

distal end

[1, 9]

Plain and

ordinary

meaning.

’950 patent:

Abstract;

1:55-2:15;

3:6-39;

4:14-46;

Figs. 1-10 &

discussion

thereof.

’330 Patent:

Abstract;

1:46-2:4;

2:66-3:26;

3:63-4:29;

Figs. 1-10 &

discussion

thereof.

If Court is

inclined to

construe the

phrase, Pl.

suggests “a

structure

for guiding

the

container

packer”

A pair of vertical structures adjacent to

the outside of the container packer

sidewalls and [sic] guides the container

packer into the transport container.

‘330 Patent, Fig. 10 no. 18.

‘950 Patent, Fig. 10 no. 18.

‘330 File Wrapper, Amendment and Request

for Reconsideration After Non-Final

Rejection, 9/10/2009, p.2 (“A container

packer guide 19 is mounted on the

transfer base and acts to guide the

container packer 6 along the longitudinal

path of the transfer base.”).

‘330 File Wrapper, Applicant Argument/

Remarks Made in an Amendment, 9/10/2009,

Fig. 10 no. 19 (“#19 refers to the

container packer guide located on the

transfer base.”).

‘330 File Wrapper, Amendment Submitted/

Entered, 03/23/2010, p. 2 (reference to

element 19, the container packer guide,

was deleted in the specification and

figures).

Maul Decl., ¶ 6.

Plaintiff argues that 

9

Case 2:12-cv-01004-GEB-DAD Document 45 Filed 09/09/13 Page 9 of 34
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

Defendants’ proposed construction attempts to place

very specific limitations on the “container packer

guide,” requiring that it (1) consist of a “pair

. . . of structures”; (2) that the structures be

“vertical”; (3) that they be adjacent to the

outside of the container packer sidewalls; and (4)

that they guide the container packer not only

between a retracted and extended position but also

“into the transport container.” These added

limitations are found nowhere in the claims and are

not supported by the specification or the

prosecution history, and accordingly should be

rejected.

(Pl.’s Opening Brief 8:25–9:2.) Plaintiff also argues that “[t]he

particular aspects of Figure 10” on which Defendants rely in support of

their construction argument “cannot define the full contours of the

claims of the patent as a whole” since the “figures depict embodiments

in [a] patent, but are not meant to constitute limitations on the scope

of the claims.” (Pl.’s Responsive Claim Construction Brief (“Pl.’s

Responsive Brief”) 3:19–20, 3:23–24 (citing Gart, 254 F.3d at 1342;

Howmedica Osteonics Corp. v. Wright Med. Tech., Inc., 540 F.3d 1337,

1345 (Fed. Cir. 2008)), ECF No. 38.) 

Plaintiff further argued at the hearing that this claim term

need not be construed since the word “guide” provides enough information

for a person having ordinary skill in the art to know where the

container packer guide is, specifically, that it is on the transfer

base, as well as what the container packer guide does, specifically,

that it helps guide the container packer longitudinally along the

transfer base between retracted and extended positions. Plaintiff

further argued that the specification need not contain every detail,

that the claim terms of the ’330 and ’950 Patents must be construed

consistently, and that the following language from claim 1 of the ’330

Patent supports its argument against Defendants’ proposed construction:

“a transfer base including proximate and distal ends and a container

10

Case 2:12-cv-01004-GEB-DAD Document 45 Filed 09/09/13 Page 10 of 34
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

packer guide, said transfer base including a floor, and said container

packer guide comprising said transfer base floor.” (’330 Patent col.

4:46–49.) 

Defendants argue that Plaintiff’s construction is barred since

the applicant’s “attempt to modify the patent disclosure” was “rejected

as new matter, constitut[ing] prosecution history estoppel,” and

Plaintiff’s proposed plain and ordinary meaning for this claim term

“encompass[es] the rejected matter.” (Defs.’ Responsive Brief 4:13–15

(citing Austl. Vision Servs. Pty. Ltd. v. Dioptics Med. Prods., Inc., 29

F. Supp. 2d 1152, 1158 (C.D. Cal. 1998)).) Specifically, Defendants

contend that after the applicant removed references to element 19 from

the patent application, “the claim term [was] entirely without support

in the patent” unless element 18 (transfer base sidewalls) could serve

as the container packer guide. (Defs.’ Responsive Brief 3:1.) However,

this argument is not supported by the language quoted by Plaintiff from

claim 1 of the ’330 Patent, which states “said container packer guide

comprising said transfer base floor,” thereby indicating that the

container packer guide can be (and must include) the transfer base

floor.

At the hearing, Defendants cited Baldwin Graphic Systems, Inc.

v. Siebert, Inc., 512 F.3d 1338, 1344 (Fed. Cir. 2008), in support of

their position that the applicant surrendered a broader scope of

“container packer guide” during patent prosecution. Plaintiff rejoined

that the Baldwin prosecution history differs from the instant

prosecution history. Specifically, Plaintiff argued that the Baldwin

applicant had tried to broaden its patent’s scope (and was therefore

prevented from claiming the broader scope); in contrast, here, the

applicant did not try to broaden the disclosure by adding element 19,

11

Case 2:12-cv-01004-GEB-DAD Document 45 Filed 09/09/13 Page 11 of 34
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

and in fact adding element 19 would, if anything, have narrowed the

disclosure’s scope.

As an initial matter, although the parties have

labeled their disagreement as one pertaining to

prosecution history estoppel, we note some

ambiguity as to whether the substance of their

arguments . . . in fact concerns . . . prosecution

disclaimer . . . . Prosecution history estoppel

applies as part of an infringement analysis to

prevent a patentee from using the doctrine of

equivalents to recapture subject matter surrendered

from the literal scope of a claim during

prosecution. Prosecution disclaimer, on the other

hand, affects claim construction and applies where

an applicant’s actions during prosecution

prospectively narrow the literal scope of an

otherwise more expansive claim limitation.

Trading Techs. Int’l, Inc. v. Open E Cry, LLC, --- F.3d ----, No. 2012-

1583, 2013 WL 4610693, at *10 (Fed. Cir. 2013) (citations omitted).

“[T]he doctrine of prosecution disclaimer attaches and narrows the

ordinary meaning of the claim congruent with the scope of the

surrender.” Omega Eng’g, Inc., 334 F.3d 1314, 1325 (Fed. Cir. 2003).

“When a patentee makes a ‘clear and unmistakable disavowal of scope

during prosecution,’ a claim’s scope may be narrowed under the doctrine

of prosecution disclaimer.” Grober v. Mako Prods., Inc., 686 F.3d 1335,

1341 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (quoting Computer Docking Station Corp. v. Dell,

Inc., 519 F.3d 1366, 1374 (Fed. Cir. 2008)). 

Prosecution disclaimer typically applies when the patent

examiner requires an applicant to include a limitation in a claim to

distinguish the invention from prior art; the applicant may not later

argue for a claim construction consistent with the prior, broader claim

scope. Here, the applicant was instructed to remove language and an

element in a figure from the patent application, not add language (or an

element to a drawing) to the application. (McCracken Decl., Ex. E,

Office Action 12/13/2009, at ¶ 2 (“[T]he newly added element 19 is

12

Case 2:12-cv-01004-GEB-DAD Document 45 Filed 09/09/13 Page 12 of 34
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

considered new matter and must be removed from the drawings.”); id. ¶ 3

(“Applicant is required to cancel the new matter in the reply to this

Office Action.”).) This removal of element 19 does not constitute a

“‘clear and unmistakable disavowal of [claim] scope’” that would invoke

the doctrine of prosecution disclaimer. Grober, 686 F.3d at 1341

(quoting Computer Docking Station Corp., 519 F.3d at 1374). Therefore,

prosecution disclaimer does not apply. 

For the stated reasons, Defendants’ proposed construction is

not adopted. Further, the claim term does not require construction. 1

2) “Distal End with an Opening”

Claim Language

(Disputed Term

in Bold)

[’950 Pat.

Claims

Implicated]

Pl.’s

Proposed

Construction

& Evidence

in Support

Defs.’ Proposed Construction & Evidence

in Support

distal end

with an

opening

Exemplary

Claim

Language:

A container

packer

including a

proximate

end, a

distal end

with an

opening,

Plain and

ordinary

meaning.

’950

Patent:

Abstract;

cols. 2:53-

61; 3:28-

54; 4:33-

35; Figs.

1-10 &

discussion

thereof.

A structure that contains a hole, is

attached to the opposite side walls and

resides opposite the proximate end.

‘330 Patent, Fig. 2 no. 32, Fig. 4 no.

32, Fig. 10 no. 32, col. 3:24-25.

‘950 Patent, Fig. 2 no. 32, Fig. 4 no.

32, Fig. 10 no. 32, col. 3:32-33.

Distal

“situated away from the point of

attachment or origin or a central point”

Source: distal. Merriam Webster

Dictionary. Merriam-Webster, Inc. 2013.

Defendants argued at the hearing that their proposed construction 1

could be modified to include the transfer base floor as part of the

construction of “container packer guide,” based on the following

language quoted by Plaintiff from the ’330 Patent: “said transfer base

including a floor, and said container packer guide comprising said

transfer base floor.” (’330 Patent col. 4:47–49.) However, adopting this

proposed construction would “narrow [the] claim term to deviate from the

plain and ordinary meaning” when the inventor has not “intentionally

disclaimed or disavowed claim scope.” Aventis Pharma., Inc., 715 F.3d at

1373.

13

Case 2:12-cv-01004-GEB-DAD Document 45 Filed 09/09/13 Page 13 of 34
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

opposite

sidewalls, a

floor and an

interior

[1, 9]

’330

Patent:

Abstract;

cols. 2:60-

64; 3:21-

46; 4:16-

18; Figs.

1-10 &

discussion

thereof.

http://www.merriamwebster.

com/dictionary/distal

End

“a part or place at or adjacent to an

extremity”

Source: end. Dictionary.com. 

Unabridged based on the Random House

Dictionary. Random House, Inc.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/e

nd

“the terminal unit of something spatial

that is marked off by units”

Source: end. Merriam Webster Dictionary.

Merriam-Webster, Inc. 2013.

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionar

y/end

Opening

“a void in solid matter; a gap, hole, or

aperture.”

Source: opening. Dictionary.com.

Unabridged based on the Random House

Dictionary. Random House, Inc.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/o

pening

Maul Decl., ¶ 7.

Defendants contend they “construe ‘distal end’ as [a]

‘structure’” “as it must be [construed] in order to contain an opening,

and the structure is further set forth as ‘distal,’ that is, opposite

the ‘proximate end’ and adjacent to the opposite side walls.” (Defs.’

Responsive Brief 5:17, 6:12–14.) The gravamen of Defendants’ argument 2

is that a “distal end” must be its own structure and cannot be construed

as being part of another structure.

Defendants also argue that “[t]he distal end is not just simply 2

the ‘back opening’ (element 35) as [Plaintiff] contends. It actually is

not the back opening at all. It is ‘back end 36,’ which contains back

opening 35.” (Defs.’ Responsive Brief 6:1–2 (quoting ’330 Patent col.

3:33–34).) However, Defendants misstate Plaintiff’s construction of

“distal end.” Plaintiff actually states that “distal end with an

opening” means “far end with an opening.” (Pl.’s Responsive Brief 4:14.)

Thus, Plaintiff’s meaning of “distal end” is simply “far end,” and has

no reference to an opening at all.

14

Case 2:12-cv-01004-GEB-DAD Document 45 Filed 09/09/13 Page 14 of 34
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

Defendants point to sections of the ’950 and ’330 Patents as

support for their argument. However, these sections describe the

container packer drive rather than the container packer, and therefore

provide no support for Defendants’ proposed construction. (See ’330

Patent, Fig. 2 no. 32, Fig. 4 no. 32, Fig. 10 no. 32, col. 3:24-25; ’950

Patent, Fig. 2 no. 32, Fig. 4 no. 32, Fig. 10 no. 32, col. 3:32-33.)

Plaintiff contends that Defendants’ proposed construction “is

inconsistent with the use of ‘distal end’ elsewhere in the patent

claims, [e.g.,] the transfer base also has proximate and distal ends.’”

(Pl.’s Responsive Brief 5:6–8.) Plaintiff further argues that if

Defendants’ proposed construction were adopted, “th[e] phrase ‘distal

end’ would have to be given a different meaning in each location where

it appears in the claims[, which] would be improper.” (Id. 5:11–12.)

Plaintiff conveyed at the hearing that “end” more logically refers to a

location than a structure. 

“[T]he same terms appearing in different claims in the same

patent . . . should have the same meaning ‘unless it is clear from the

specification and prosecution history that the terms have different

meanings at different portions of the claims.’” Wilson Sporting Goods

Co. v. Hillerich & Bradsby Co., 442 F.3d 1322, 1328 (Fed. Cir. 2006)

(quoting Fin. Control Sys. Pty, Ltd. v. OAM, Inc., 265 F.3d 1311, 1318

(Fed Cir. 2001)) (citing Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1314). Here, “distal end”

appears in claims referring to the transfer base, (’950 Patent col.

4:62–63 (“a transfer base including proximate and distal ends”); id.

cols. 5:34–35, 5:42–43 (“said transfer base distal end”)), which only

has a structure on its proximate end. (See ’950 Patent, Figs. 1, 2.)

Descriptions of the container packer and transfer base ends as either

“distal” or “proximate” identify those ends to the reader of the patent

15

Case 2:12-cv-01004-GEB-DAD Document 45 Filed 09/09/13 Page 15 of 34
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

based on the orientation of the figures in the patent, and, based on the

intrinsic evidence, are not required to be separate structures. 

Plaintiff also argued at the hearing that the doctrine of

claim differentiation applies to this claim term, quoting from Phillips:

“[T]he presence of a dependent claim that adds a particular limitation

gives rise to a presumption that the limitation in question is not

present in the independent claim.” Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1315. Plaintiff

further argued that, under the doctrine of claim differentiation, since

claim 4 contains reference to a door, claim 1 cannot contain a door–and

therefore the container packer distal end does not require a structure

to which a door could be attached. Plaintiff also contends that

“Defendants’ proposed construction is predicated upon an importation of

one embodiment into the claim language . . . rely[ing] upon an

embodiment having an overhead door, which opens and closes a back

opening, in order to construct a new claim limitation of a structure

with a hole.” (Pl.’s Responsive Brief 4:18–21.)

Here, the ’950 Patent states: “It is to be understood that

while certain embodiments and/or aspects of the invention have been

shown and described, the invention is not limited thereto and

encompasses various other embodiments and aspects.” (’950 Patent col.

4:55–58.) This specifically contradicts the possibility that Plaintiff

“demonstrated a clear intention to limit the claim scope using ‘words or

expressions of manifest exclusion or restriction.’” Liebel-Flarsheim

Co., 358 F.3d at 906 (quoting Teleflex, Inc., 299 F.3d at 1327).

The disputed claim term “distal end with an opening” is

readily understood when given its plain and ordinary meaning, and

Defendants’ proposed construction is unsupported since it references

16

Case 2:12-cv-01004-GEB-DAD Document 45 Filed 09/09/13 Page 16 of 34
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

portions of the patent about the container packer drive rather than the

container packer. Therefore, this claim term need not be construed.

3) “Interior”

Claim

Language

(Disputed

Term in Bold)

[’950 Pat.

Claims

Implicated]

Pl.’s

Proposed

Construction

& Evidence

in Support

Defs.’ Proposed Construction & Evidence in

Support

interior

Exemplary

Claim

Language:

A container

packer

including a

proximate

end, a

distal end

with an

opening,

opposite

sidewalls,

a floor and

an interior

[1, 7, 9,

15]

Plain and

ordinary

meaning.

’950 Patent:

Abstract;

cols. 1:55-

2:14; 3:6-9;

3:34-54;

3:63-4:2;

4:14-35;

Figs. 1-10 &

discussion

thereof.

’330 Patent:

Abstract;

cols. 1:46-

2:5; 2:66-

3:3; 3:26-

3:47; 3:55-

4:18; Figs.

1-10 &

discussion

thereof.

The space defined by the proximate end,

distal end, opposite sidewalls and floor

for holding bulk material in the container

packer.

‘330 Patent, Fig. 5 no. 46, col. 3:46-50.

‘950 Patent, Fig. 5 no. 46, col. 3:54-68.

Interior

“the internal or inner part; inside”

Source: interior. Dictionary.com.

Unabridged based on the Random House

Dictionary. Random House, Inc.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/int

erior

“a part, surface, or region that is inside

or on the inside”

Source: interior. Dictionary.com. Collins

English Dictionary – Complete & Unabridged

10th Edition. Harper Collins Publishers.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/int

erior

Maul Decl., ¶ 10.

Defendants argue that their proposed construction “makes it

clear that the interior is not some additional or other space, but is

the space that is bounded by the four sides and the floor for the

purpose set out in the patent, which is to hold bulk material.” (Defs.’

Opening Brief 12:1–3.) Plaintiff rejoins that “Defendants’ . . . motive

for [this] non-infringement-based construction [is] to require that the

only structure that can have an ‘interior’ is one that has four walls.’”

(Pl.’s Responsive Brief 6:16–17 (citing Defs.’ Opening Brief at 12).)

17

Case 2:12-cv-01004-GEB-DAD Document 45 Filed 09/09/13 Page 17 of 34
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

Plaintiff further argued at the hearing that an interior “need not be

completely closed.” 

The Federal Circuit has upheld the district court’s decision

to decline to construe a claim term including the word “interior” in a

system patent. E.g., Aero Prods. Int’l, Inc. v. Intex Recreation Corp.,

466 F.3d 1000, 1011 n.5 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (“We see no error in the

district court’s construction of the term passageway (‘a way that allows

a passage of air to and from the interior of the bed’).”). 

Here, the disputed claim term “interior” does not require

construction and therefore need not be construed. See generally Aero

Prods. Int’l, Inc., 466 F.3d at 1011 n.5.

4) “Said Container Packer Being Movable . . .”

Claim

Language

(Disputed

Term in Bold)

[’950 Pat.

Claims

Implicated]

Pl.’s

Proposed

Construction

& Evidence

in Support

Defs.’ Proposed Construction & Evidence in

Support

said

container

packer

being

movable...

between a

retracted

position

on said

transfer

base and

an

extended

position

extending

at least

partially

from said

transfer

base

distal end

[1, 9]

Plain and

ordinary

meaning.

’950 Patent:

Abstract;

cols. 1:55-

2:14; 3:6-9;

3:34-54;

3:63-4:2;

4:9-46;

Figs. 1-10 &

discussion

thereof.

’330 Patent:

Abstract;

cols. 1:46-

2:5; 2:66-

3:3; 3:26-

3:47; 3:49-

4:29; Figs.

1-10 &

The container packer moves between a

position that is not extended at least

partially beyond the transfer base distal

end and a position that is extended at

least partially from the transfer base

distal end.

‘330 Patent, Figs. 1 & 2, col. 1:46-50,

col. 4:7-10, 4:25-27.

‘950 Patent, Figs. 1 & 2, col. 1:55-59,

col. 4:24-27, 4:42-44.

Retract

“to draw back within itself or oneself,

fold up, or the like, or to be capable of

doing this: The blade retracts.”

Source: retract. Dictionary.com.

Unabridged based on the Random House

Dictionary. Random House, Inc.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/ret

ract

“to draw or pull back”

18

Case 2:12-cv-01004-GEB-DAD Document 45 Filed 09/09/13 Page 18 of 34
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

discussion

thereof.

Source: retract. Merriam Webster

Dictionary. Merriam-Webster, Inc. 2013.

http://www.merriamwebster.

com/dictionary/retract

Maul Decl., ¶ 11.

Plaintiff argues that Defendants’ construction is an “attempt

to rewrite the claims in order to add a limitation to ‘retracted

position’ that is not contained in the patent, namely that the retracted

position must not extend past the distal end of the transfer base.”

(Pl.’s Opening Brief 15:1–3.) Plaintiff further contends that “[e]ven

though the retracted and extended positions referred to in the claim

language are distinct,” the key distinction is not that the two

positions are mutually exclusive regarding extension past the transfer

base distal end, but that “the extended position extends further beyond

the transfer base distal end” than the retracted position. (Pl.’s

Responsive Brief 7:14–15, 7:17–18.)

Defendants contend that since the definition of “extended

position” is “‘extending at least partially from said transfer base

distal end,’ the retracted position must necessarily be the position

that is not at least partially extended from the transfer base distal

end”; “that is, the container packer [could] not be in the retracted

position and extended position simultaneously.” (Id. 12:21–23 (quoting

’950 Patent), 12:18–20.)

When “the ‘ordinary’ meaning of a term does not resolve the

parties’ dispute, . . . claim construction requires the court to

determine what claim scope is appropriate in the context of the patentsin-suit.” O2 Micro Int’l Ltd., 521 F.3d at 1361. Here, the parties’

dispute, narrowly defined, is whether when the container packer is in a

retracted position, it must be entirely on the transfer base; Defendants

19

Case 2:12-cv-01004-GEB-DAD Document 45 Filed 09/09/13 Page 19 of 34
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

argue it must be, while Plaintiff argues that it can be partially

extended beyond the transfer base distal end and still within the

claim’s scope. Declining to construe this claim term could result in the

parties arguing the definition of “on” to the jurors at trial.

Therefore, the claim term must be construed to clarify the scope of “on”

within the claim term. 

Although Figure 1 of the ’950 Patent shows the container

packer fully on the transfer base (i.e., not partially extended over

it), the patent expressly states that “embodiments and/or aspects of the

invention [that] have been shown and described[ do] not limit[ the

patent] thereto.” (’950 Patent col. 4:55–57; see ’950 Patent, Fig. 1.) 

At the hearing, Plaintiff provided drawings of an alternate embodiment

of the container packer in which the container packer extends beyond the

transfer base distal end when the container packer is in a retracted

position. (Pl.’s Claim Construction Hearing Presentation, at 45.) The

claim language defines the bounds of claim scope.” Teleflex, Inc. v.

Ficosa N. Am. Corp., 299 F.3d 1313, 1324 (Fed. Cir. 2002). This

alternate embodiment was within the scope of the claim.

Further, the patents contain no reference to the size of the

transfer base relative to the size of the container packer. Defendants’

proposed construction requires that the transfer base be at least as

long as the container packer (since the container packer cannot extend

beyond the container packer distal end when it is in its retracted

position). To read language into the claim term that dictates the size

of the transfer base relative to the size of the container packer

without evidence of an “intentional[] disclaim[er] or disavow[al of]

claim scope”–none of which has been provided–would improperly “narrow

[the] claim term.” Aventis Pharma. Inc., 715 F.3d at 1373. 

20

Case 2:12-cv-01004-GEB-DAD Document 45 Filed 09/09/13 Page 20 of 34
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

Defendants’ proposed construction is not adopted. However,

since the parties dispute the scope of the word “on” in this claim term,

the following claim construction is adopted: “said container packer

being movable . . . between a retracted position at least partially on

said transfer base and an extended position extending at least partially

from said transfer base distal end.” 

5) “Discharging Bulk Material Through Said Container Packer Distal End

Opening”

Claim Language

(Disputed Term

in Bold)

[’950 Pat.

Claims

Implicated]

Pl.’s

Proposed

Construction

& Evidence

in Support

Defs.’ Proposed Construction & Evidence

in Support

discharging

bulk material

through said

container

packer distal

end opening

Exemplary

Claim

Language:

a material

transfer

assembly

mounted in

said

container

packer

interior and

adapted for

discharging

bulk material

through said

container

packer distal

end opening

[1, 9]

Plain and

ordinary

meaning.

’950

Patent:

Abstract;

cols. 1:55-

2:14; 3:6-

9; 3:34-54;

3:63-4:2;

4:14-35;

Figs. 1-10

&

discussion

thereof.

’330

Patent:

Abstract;

cols. 1:46-

2:5; 2:66-

3:3; 3:26-

3:47; 3:55-

4:19; Figs.

1-10 &

discussion

thereof.

Moving bulk material out of the

container packer through the opening in

the container packer distal end.

’330 Patent, Fig. 8, cols. 3:39-46,

4:10-13, 4:16-18.

’950 Patent, Fig. 8, cols. 3:46-54,

4:27-30, 4:33-35.

Discharge

“to remove (the cargo) from (a boat,

etc); unload”

Source: discharge. Dictionary.com.

Collins English Dictionary – Complete &

Unabridged 10th Edition. Harper Collins

Publishers.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/d

ischarge

“to unload or empty (contents)”

Source: discharge. American Heritage

Dictionary of the English Language,

Fifth Edition. Houghton Mifflin Harcourt

Publishing Company.

http://www.ahdictionary.com/word/search.

html?q=discharge

Maul Decl., ¶ 12.

Plaintiff argues that “Defendants provide no reason why

‘discharge’ needs special interpretation for the jury by the Court or

why it is necessary to substitute Defendants’ language for the

21

Case 2:12-cv-01004-GEB-DAD Document 45 Filed 09/09/13 Page 21 of 34
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

patentee’s,” (Pl.’s Responsive Brief 8:20–21), and “[t]he term does not

need any . . . construction.” (Pl.’s Opening Brief 16:5.) At the

hearing, Plaintiff contended that Defendants’ proposed construction

would rearrange the claim term language and add ambiguity to the claim

term. 

Defendants counter that their “proposal assists the jury to

understand what the claim requires, that is, that the bulk material is

moved out of the container loader and into the transport container

through the opening that is in the distal end.” (Defs.’ Responsive Brief

10:13–15.) At the hearing, Defendants admitted that the differences

between “discharging” and “moving out of” were not significant but

suggested that the latter phrase would be easier for jurors to

understand.

Since Defendants have not shown that their word choice is

better than “the word that the inventor actually chose,” or that the

plain and ordinary meaning of this claim term is unclear, the claim term

need not be construed. Int’l Rectifier Corp., 361 F.3d at 1374.

6) “Said Push Blade Assembly Is Adapted for Compacting Bulk Materials

in Said Container”

Claim Language

(Disputed Term in

Bold)

[’950 Pat. Claims

Implicated]

Pl.’s

Proposed

Construction

& Evidence in

Support

Defs.’ Proposed Construction &

Evidence in Support

said push blade

assembly is

adapted for

compacting

bulk material in

said container

Exemplary Claim

Language:

said push blade

assembly movement

sequentially

cooperating with

Plain and

ordinary

meaning.

’950 Patent:

Abstract;

cols. 1:33-

46; 1:55-

2:14; 3:6-9;

3:34-4:46;

Figs. 1-10 &

discussion

thereof.

The push blade assembly presses

together bulk material in the

container packer.

Alternate Construction: “the

push blade assembly is adapted

so that it presses together bulk

material in the container

packer”

‘330 Patent, col. 4:16-20.

‘950 Patent, col. 4:30-37.

22

Case 2:12-cv-01004-GEB-DAD Document 45 Filed 09/09/13 Page 22 of 34
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

said container

packer movement

whereby said push

blade assembly is

adapted for

compacting bulk

material in said

container

[1, 9]

’330 Patent:

Abstract;

cols. 1:09-

38; 1:46-2:5;

2:66-3:3;

3:26-4:29;

Figs. 1-10 &

discussion

thereof.

Compact

“to press together: COMPRESS”

Source: compact. Merriam Webster

Dictionary.

Merriam-Webster, Inc. 2013.

http://www.merriamwebster.com/di

ctionary/compact

Maul Decl., ¶ 14.

At the hearing, the Court proposed the following tentative

claim construction for the phrase “said container” in this claim term:

“the container for moving material from one geographic location to

another.” Plaintiff did not argue against this construction, and

Defendants opposed it.

Defendants argue that “said container” must refer to the

“container packer” since “said container packer” appears earlier in the

claim. Defendants further contended that the use of “said” provides an

antecedent basis for the earlier use of “container packer” in claims 1

and 9. Defendants also argued since the container packer is itself a

container its proposed construction is supported. 

Plaintiff countered that any reference to compacting in the

patent claims has it occurring in the transport container. 

Defendants’ argument is not supported by the text of claim 9

of the ’950 Patent, which states:

activating said material transfer assembly drive,

thereby extending said push blade assembly pistonand-cylinder unit, wherein said push blade assembly

movement sequentially cooperates with said

container packer movement whereby said bulk

material is pushed from within said container

packer into said transport container, and whereby

said bulk material is compacted within said

container[.]

(’950 Patent col. 7:14–21 (emphasis added).) Thus, claim 9 provides an

antecedent of “said transport container” for “said container.” Further,

23

Case 2:12-cv-01004-GEB-DAD Document 45 Filed 09/09/13 Page 23 of 34
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

this portion of the method in claim 9 corresponds directly to the

portion of the system in claim 1, suggesting that the phrase “said

container” at the end of each clause should have the same meaning. Other

language in the patent supports Plaintiff’s argument that material is

compacted in the transport container rather than the container packer;

the written description of the ’950 Patent states: “Depending upon the

nature of the bulk material 10, it may be compacted by the push blade

assembly 50 in the transport container 8.” (’950 Patent col. 4:35–37.)

The ’950 Patent contains no reference to compacting occurring within the

container packer.

The prosecution history further supports Plaintiff’s position

that “said container” refers to the transport container rather than the

container packer. In distinguishing the instant invention from the prior

art during patent prosecution of the ’330 Patent, the applicant states: 

The main difference between the present invention

as claimed presently, and Frankel [prior art

patent], is that the present invention includes a

two-stage hydraulic system that both loads and

compacts bulk material into a transportation

container. . . . The presently claimed invention is

distinguishable [from Frankel] because it employs a

two-direction motion system that allows material to

be pushed away from the loading end of the

transport container and optionally compact that

material as the container is being loaded.

(Amendment to Accompany RCE and Stmt. of Substance of Mar. 10, 2010

Interview, at 8 (Mar. 23, 2010), Complete Prosecution History, Ex. B, at

p. 34 of 201 (emphases added); ECF No. 42-2.) The ’330 Patent was

subsequently granted. (See Notice of Allowance & Fee(s) Due, Complete

Prosecution History, Ex. B, pp. 13–15 of 201.) This argument made to the

patent examiner demonstrates that the applicant differentiated the

instant invention from prior art based on its ability to both load into

and compact within a transport container.

24

Case 2:12-cv-01004-GEB-DAD Document 45 Filed 09/09/13 Page 24 of 34
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

Defendants also argued that language in dependent claims 7 and

15 supports their contention that the patent’s purpose is to compact

within the container packer; they quoted the following language from the

claims: “the material transfer assembly can move and compact the entire

volume of bulk material within said container packer assembly with one

extension of said assembly piston-and-cylinder.” (’950 Patent col.

6:16–19; id. col. 8:30–34.) The gravamen of Defendants’ argument is that

these claims demonstrate that in claims 7 and 15, “the material transfer

assembly” is “compact[ing] . . . within said container packer,” which

supports their proposed construction.

Plaintiff countered that the appropriate interpretation of

those claims’ language is that “the material transfer assembly”

“compact[s] the entire volume of bulk material [located] within said

container packer assembly.” By inserting the word “located” for clarity,

Plaintiff demonstrates that “within said container packer assembly”

modifies “the entire volume of bulk material” rather than “compact.”

Therefore, Defendants’ proposed construction is not adopted. 

However, since the phrase “said container” is more confusing

than “transport container” in the context of this claim, and since a

construction for “transport container” has been adopted, the following

claim construction is adopted for clarity: “said push blade assembly is

adapted for compacting bulk material in the container for moving

material from one geographic location to another.”

7) “Compact the Entire Volume of Bulk Material Within Said Container

Packer Assembly with One Extension of Said Assembly Piston-andCylinder”

Claim Language (Disputed

Term in Bold)

[’950 Pat. Claims

Implicated]

Pl.’s

Proposed

Construction

& Evidence

in Support

Defs.’ Proposed Construction &

Evidence in Support

25

Case 2:12-cv-01004-GEB-DAD Document 45 Filed 09/09/13 Page 25 of 34
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

compact the entire

volume of bulk

material within said

container packer

assembly with one

extension of said

assembly piston-andcylinder.

Exemplary Claim

Language:

The system of claim

1 wherein said push

blade is of

substantially equal

height and width of

the container packer

interior so that the

material transfer

assembly can move

and compact the

entire volume of

bulk material within

said

container packer

assembly with one

extension of said

assembly piston-andcylinder.

[7, 15]

Plain and

ordinary

meaning.

’950 Patent:

cols. 3:54-

66; 4:30-37;

Figs. 1-10 &

discussion

thereof;

claims 7,

15.

’330 Patent:

cols. 3:46-

61; 4:13-20;

Figs. 1-10 &

discussion

thereof.

Completely compress the bulk

material inside the container

packer assembly by moving the

piston-and-cylinder into an

extended position one time.

‘330 Patent File Wrapper,

Amendment After Final Rejection

02/23/2010, p. 10 (“The Hamill

push blade lacks the compaction

ability have [sic] because it

could not possibly turn the entire

load of bulk material located in

its storage bay into one bale of

material. The blade is too short

to compact the entire volume of

material, and thus only a small

portion of material could be

compacted at a time. This is not

an issue with the invention as

presently claimed. Claim 1, as

presently amended, points out that

the push blade employed in the

present invention fills the entire

volume of the container packer and

can move the entire volume of bulk

material in one full extension of

its hydraulic arm.”)

Compact

“to press together: COMPRESS”

Source: compact. Merriam Webster

Dictionary. Merriam-Webster, Inc.

2013. http://www.merriamwebster.

com/dictionary/compact

Maul Decl., ¶ 17.

Defendants contend that their “phrase ‘completely compress’ is

just as clear in meaning as the phrase ‘compact the entire volume.’”

(Defs.’ Responsive Brief 12:21–22.) Defendants further argued at the

hearing that Plaintiff “incorrectly asserts the bulk material can remain

partially uncompressed.” Defendants also made a non-infringement-based

argument that their accused device does not “completely compress

anything.”

26

Case 2:12-cv-01004-GEB-DAD Document 45 Filed 09/09/13 Page 26 of 34
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

Plaintiff rejoins that “Defendants’ proposed construction

. . . essentially adds the word ‘completely’ to the claim, thus

conflating ‘compact the entire volume’ with ‘entirely compact the

volume.’” (Pl.’s Responsive Brief 10:12–14.) Plaintiff reiterated at the

hearing that “compact the entire volume” does not mean “entirely compact

the volume.” Plaintiff further argues that “[b]eing able to compact, or

press, bulk material to some degree based on a single extension of a

push blade does not define the degree to which that bulk material would

have to be compressed.” (Pl.’s Responsive Brief 10:17–19.)

Defendants relied on the ’330 Patent prosecution history to

support their argument. However, the prosecution history supports

Plaintiff’s argument. In response to the PTO action of December 23,

2009, the applicant made the following argument to distinguish the

container packer system and method from prior art, specifically the push

blade in the Hamill invention:

The Hamill push blade cannot possibly compress

and move the entire volume of material located in

the material storage bay in one movement of the

push blade’s hydraulic arm. The push blade employed

by Hamill does not fill the entire volume of the

material storage bay, and thus would have to move

back and forth several times to compact or unload

the entire load of bulk material.

The Hamill push blade lacks the compaction

ability have [sic] because it could not possibly

turn the entire load of bulk material located in

its storage bay into one bale of material. The

blade is too short to compact the entire volume of

material, and thus only a small portion of material

could be compacted at a time. This is not an issue

with the invention as presently claimed. Claim 1,

as presently amended, points out that the push

blade employed in the present invention fills the

entire volume of the container packer and can move

the entire volume of bulk material in one full

extension of its hydraulic arm.

(Appl. No. 12/138,973; Amdt. dated Mar. 23, 2010; Reply to Office action

of Dec. 23, 2009, at 9; ECF No. 42-2 (p. 35 of 201).) These arguments do

27

Case 2:12-cv-01004-GEB-DAD Document 45 Filed 09/09/13 Page 27 of 34
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

not distinguish the prior art of the Hamill push blade based on the

degree to which the invention’s push blade compacts the bulk material.

Instead, to distinguish this invention from the Hamill push blade, which

is described as “too short to compact the entire volume of material” and

as “not fill[ing] the entire volume of the material storage bay,” the

applicant argued that this invention’s push blade “fills the entire

volume of the container packer and can move the entire volume of bulk

material in one full extension of its hydraulic arm.” (Id.) This

supports Plaintiff’s argument that the claim term “does not define the

degree to which th[e] bulk material would have to be compressed.” (Pl.’s

Responsive Brief 10:18–19.)

Here, Defendants’ proposed construction conflates “compact the

entire volume” with “entirely compact the volume,” which changes the

term’s meaning, and which the intrinsic evidence does not support.

Therefore, Defendants’ proposed construction is not adopted, and the

claim term need not be construed.

B. Indefiniteness

Defendants argue that the two remaining disputed terms fail

for indefiniteness; Plaintiff rejoins that they do not.

Defendants argued at the hearing that the inability to

construe a claim term means the term is indefinite, and both

“approximate” and “in proximity to” fail for indefiniteness. Defendants

further contended that without construction both terms “are ripe for

abuse.” Plaintiff responds, inter alia, quoting from Hearing Components,

Inc. v. Shure Inc.: “A patentee need not define his invention with

mathematical precision in order to comply with the definiteness

requirement.” 600 F.3d at 1367. Plaintiff also cited to a number of

cases in which terms of degree were upheld by the Federal Circuit.

28

Case 2:12-cv-01004-GEB-DAD Document 45 Filed 09/09/13 Page 28 of 34
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

Defendants rejoined that since every case requires a fact-specific

inquiry, Plaintiff could not rely on the Federal Circuit upholding like

terms in other cases.

“The definiteness analysis requires a determination of

‘whether one skilled in the art would understand the bounds of the claim

when read in light of the specification.’” Kinetic Concepts, Inc. v.

Blue Sky Med. Grp., Inc., 554 F.3d 1010, 1022 (Fed. Cir. 2009) (quoting

Personalized Media Commc’ns, LLC v. Int’l Trade Comm’n, 161 F.3d 696,

705 (Fed. Cir. 1998)). “A claim is indefinite only when it is ‘not

amenable to construction’ or ‘insolubly ambiguous.’” Biosig Instruments,

Inc. v. Nautilus, Inc., 715 F.3d 891, 897 (Fed. Cir. 2013) (quoting

Datamize, LLC v. Plumtree Software, Inc., 417 F.3d 1342, 1347 (Fed. Cir.

2005)). 

Plaintiff argued at the hearing that the Maul Declaration did

not support Defendants’ indefiniteness argument since it provides only

conclusory statements. Defendants rejoined that the Maul Declaration

“explains why” the terms fail for indefiniteness. Defendants relied on

Martek Biosciences Corp. v. Nutrinova, Inc., 579 F.3d 1363, 1371 (Fed.

Cir. 2009), quoting from the decision as follows: “When an expert states

why he reaches a conclusion regarding claim construction, it is not

conclusory and can be relied upon.” Defendants further argued that

Plaintiff wants to ignore the Maul Declaration because Plaintiff has no

expert testimony.

Maul declares that: “One of skill in the art would not be able

to tell if a device practiced the claim in the patents-at-issue or not

because the term ‘approximate’ is too vague and renders the term

indefinite.” (Maul. Decl. ¶ 16.) However, Maul does not provide any

support for Defendants’ argument that the term “in proximity to” is

29

Case 2:12-cv-01004-GEB-DAD Document 45 Filed 09/09/13 Page 29 of 34
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

indefinite, but instead refers to the term “proximate,” (id. ¶ 13), for

which Defendants do not make an indefiniteness argument.

The parties’ respective positions, and support therefor, on

whether the terms are indefinite follows.

1) “In Proximity To”

Claim Language (Disputed

Term in Bold)

[’950 Pat. Claims

Implicated]

Pl.’s Proposed

Construction &

Evidence in

Support

Defs.’ Proposed

Construction & Evidence in

Support

in proximity to

Exemplary Claim

Language: 

said material transfer

assembly comprising a

push blade assembly

located in and affixed

to said container

packer and movable

longitudinally between

a retracted position in

proximity to said

container packer

proximate end and an

extended position in

proximity to said

container packer distal

end;

A transport container

selectively located in

proximity to said

transfer base distal

end.

[1, 9]

Plain and

ordinary

meaning.

’950 Patent:

Abstract; cols.

1:55-2:14; 3:6-

9; 3:28-4:35;

Figs. 1-10 &

discussion

thereof.

’330 Patent:

Abstract; cols.

1:39-42; 1:46-

2:5; 3:20-4:18;

Figs. 1-10 &

discussion

thereof.

Indefinite – No way of

determining whether one

structure is sufficiently

close to be “in proximity

to” another.

Proximity

“the quality or state of

being proximate: closeness”

Source: compact. [sic]

Merriam Webster Dictionary.

Merriam-Webster, Inc. 2013.

http://www.merriamwebster.c

om/dictionary/proximity

Proximate [sic]

“very near: close”

Source: compact. [sic]

Merriam Webster Dictionary.

Merriam-Webster, Inc. 2013.

http://www.merriamwebster.c

om/dictionary/proximate

Maul Decl., ¶ 13.

Defendants argue that “there is no way to determine whether

one structure is sufficiently close to be ‘in proximity to’ another

structure.” (Defs.’ Responsive Brief 13:5–6.) Defendants also contend

that “[a] claim term with no objective anchor defining with certainty

the bounds of a claim’s scope renders the term indefinite and the claim

invalid.” (Defs.’ Opening Brief 13:17–18 (citing Datamize, LLC, 417 F.3d

at 1350–51).) Defendants contend “that one skilled in the art cannot

30

Case 2:12-cv-01004-GEB-DAD Document 45 Filed 09/09/13 Page 30 of 34
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

possibly know how close is close enough to fall within the scope of the

claim,” and “it is not possible to tell how close a referenced element

would have to be in order to be ‘proximate’ [sic].” (Defs.’ Opening

Brief 14:12–13, 14:18–19 (citing Maul Decl. ¶ 13).) 

Plaintiff rejoins that “[w]hen the term is considered in [the]

context [of the patent], it is clear that not only is the term definite,

but its meaning is clear and does not require further construction.”

(Pl.’s Responsive Brief 12:1–4.) Plaintiff further argues that “the

phrase ‘in proximity to’ has been widely accepted by the Federal

Circuit.” (Id. 12:18.) Plaintiff also contends that “[b]ecause a

layperson, let alone a person of ordinary skill in the art, can

understand the scope of ‘in proximity to’ when read in the context of

the claims, the term is not indefinite and should be given its ordinary

meaning.” (Pl.’s Opening Brief 21:14–16 (citing Shimano, Inc. v.

Campagnolo S.R.L., No. CV 00-7710(GAF)(SHx), 2001 WL 36169714 (C.D. Cal.

July 2, 2001); Rosemount, Inc. v. Beckman Instruments, Inc., 727 F.2d

1540, 1546–47 (Fed. Cir. 1984)).)

The Federal Circuit has held that terms such as “close to” and

“closely approximate” “are ubiquitous in patent claims. Such usages when

serving reasonably to describe the claimed subject matter to those of

skill in the field of the invention, and to distinguish the claimed

subject matter from the prior art, have been accepted in patent

examination and upheld by the courts.” Andrew Corp. v. Gabriel Elecs.,

Inc., 847 F.2d 819, 821 (Fed. Cir. 1988); see also Rosemount, Inc. v.

Beckman Instruments, Inc., 727 F.2d 1540, 1546–47 (Fed. Cir. 1984)

(indicating the context in which the terms are used is considered and

stating that “‘close proximity’ is as precise as the subject matter

permits”). This supports Plaintiff’s arguments that the phrase “in

31

Case 2:12-cv-01004-GEB-DAD Document 45 Filed 09/09/13 Page 31 of 34
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

proximity to” is not indefinite and requires no construction in light of

the context in which the terms are used.

For the stated reasons, “in proximity to” neither fails for

indefiniteness nor requires construction.

2) “Said Push Blade Assembly Piston-and-Cylinder Unit Is Attached at

the Approximate Center of Said Push Blade Assembly”

Claim Language

(Disputed Term in

Bold)

[’950 Pat. Claims

Implicated]

Pl.’s

Proposed

Construction

& Evidence

in Support

Defs.’ Proposed Construction &

Evidence in Support

said push blade

assembly pistonand-cylinder

unit is attached

at the

approximate

center of said

push blade

assembly

Exemplary Claim

Language:

The system of

claim 1, wherein

said container

packer drive

piston-andcylinder unit is

attached at a

position

relative to the

base of said

container

packer, and said

push blade

assembly pistonand-cylinder

unit is attached

at the

approximate

center of said

push blade

assembly.

[6, 14]

Plain and

ordinary

meaning.

’950

Patent:

Abstract;

cols. 1:55-

2:14; 3:4-

9; 3:28-

4:47; Figs.

1-10 &

discussion

thereof.

“approximate” renders the term

indefinite.

Alternatively: “push blade assembly

piston-and-cylinder unit is attached

at a point halfway between the top and

bottom edges and halfway between the

left and right edges of the push blade

assembly” 

‘330 Patent, Fig. 3 no. 56.

‘950 Patent, Fig. 3 no. 56.

Center

“A point or place that is equally

distant from the sides or outer

boundaries of something; the middle:

the center of a stage.” 

Source: center. American Heritage

Dictionary of the English Language,

Fifth Edition. Houghton Mifflin

Harcourt Publishing Company. 

http://www.ahdictionary.com/word/searc

h.html?q=center

“the midpoint of any line or figure,

esp the point within a circle or

sphere that is equidistant from any

point on the circumference or surface” 

Source: center. Dictionary.com.

Collins English Dictionary – Complete

& Unabridged 10th Edition. Harper

Collins Publishers.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse

/center

Maul Decl., ¶ 16.

32

Case 2:12-cv-01004-GEB-DAD Document 45 Filed 09/09/13 Page 32 of 34
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

Defendants argue that “approximate” “renders the [claim term]

indefinite [since o]ne skilled in the art would not be able to tell if

a device practiced the claims at issue because the term ‘approximate’ is

vague.” (Defs.’ Opening Brief 15:21–24.)

Plaintiff contends that “there is no requirement that the

claims define the ‘approximate center’ with mathematical precision.”

(Pl.’s Opening Brief 22:10–11 (citing Hearing Components, Inc., 600 F.3d

at 1367).) Plaintiff also argues that “[t]he Federal Circuit recognizes

that ‘words of approximation, such as “generally” and “substantially,”

are descriptive terms commonly used in patent claims to avoid strict

numerical boundary to the specified parameter.’” (Id. 22:11–13 (quoting

Anchor Wall Sys., Inc. v. Rockwood Retaining Walls, Inc., 340 F.3d 1298,

1310–11 (Fed. Cir. 2003)).) Plaintiff further contends that “Defendants’

alternative construction . . . is at odds with the claim language

because it reads ‘approximate[]’ completely out of the claim.” (Id.

13:19–21.) Plaintiff also argued at the hearing that the Federal Circuit

decision in Playtex Products, Inc. v. Procter & Gamble Co., 400 F.3d

901, 907 (Fed. Cir. 2005), in which the Federal Circuit upheld the trial

court’s decision not to construe the claim term “substantially flattened

surfaces,” supports Plaintiff’s position that “approximate” need not be

construed. 

Here, Defendants’ proposed construction eliminates the word

“approximate” from the claims entirely. Given that other similar terms

are “ubiquitously used in patent claims,” Anchor Wall Sys., Inc., 340

F.3d at 1311, and given the context in which the word is used,

Defendants’ proposed construction is overly limiting and is not adopted.

Further, the claim term neither fails for indefiniteness nor requires

construction.

33

Case 2:12-cv-01004-GEB-DAD Document 45 Filed 09/09/13 Page 33 of 34
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

IV. CONCLUSION

For the stated reasons, Defendants’ proposed claim

constructions are not adopted. Further, no disputed claim terms fail for

indefiniteness. In addition, the following construction of “transport

container” has been adopted: “a container for moving material from one

geographic location to another,” which is adopted. 

Each of the disputed claim terms addressed in this ruling is

not construed, with the exception of two claim terms, which are

construed as follows: 

(1) “said push blade assembly is adapted for compacting bulk

material in said container” is construed as “said push blade

assembly is adapted for compacting bulk material in the

container for moving material from one geographic location to

another”;

(2) “said container packer being movable . . . between a

retracted position on said transfer base and an extended

position extending at least partially from said transfer base

distal end” is construed as “said container packer being

movable . . . between a retracted position at least partially

on said transfer base and an extended position extending at

least partially from said transfer base distal end.” 

Dated: September 6, 2013

 

GARLAND E. BURRELL, JR.

Senior United States District Judge

34

Case 2:12-cv-01004-GEB-DAD Document 45 Filed 09/09/13 Page 34 of 34