NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential. 

United States Court of Appeals 

for the Federal Circuit 

__________________________ 

LASERFACTURING, INC. 

AND THE TWENTYFIRST CENTURY 

CORPORATION 

(doing business as TC Arts & Laserfactures), 

Plaintiffs-Appellants, 

v. 

OLD CARCO LIQUIDATION TRUST, 

Defendant-Appellee. 

__________________________ 

2009-1013 

__________________________ 

Appeal from the United States District Court for the 

Southern District of Texas in Case No. 4:07-CV-00207, 

Judge Melinda Harmon 

_____________________ 

Decided: September 17, 2012 

_____________________ 

EDWARD E. GOLDSTEIN, Goldstein, Faucett & Prebeg, 

LLP, of Houston, Texas, for plaintiffs-appellees. With 

him on the brief was CALIFF T. COOPER, 

JENNIFER L. SWIZE, Jones Day, of Washington, DC, for 

defendant-appellee. 
LASERFACTURING v. OLD CARCO 2

FRANK C. CIMINO, JR., Dickstein Shapiro LLP, of 

Washington, DC for amicus curiae Chrysler Group, LLC. 

With him on the brief was MEGAN S. WOODWORTH. 

__________________________ 

Before RADER, Chief Judge, BRYSON and PROST, Circuit 

Judges

RADER, Chief Judge. 

The United States District Court for the Southern 

District of Texas, on summary judgment, determined that 

DaimlerChrysler Corporation (“DaimlerChrysler”) did not 

infringe U.S. Patent No. 5,595,670 (the ’670 patent) 

owned by Laserfacturing Inc. and The Twentyfirst Century Corporation d/b/a TC Arts & Laserfactures (collectively “Laserfacturing”). Because the trial court correctly 

construed the claim term “sheet” and properly discerned 

no infringement, this court affirms. 

I. 

The ’670 patent discloses a method of welding using a 

laser or electron beam. See ’670 patent at col. 4 ll. 18-22. 

The invention discloses ways to weld more quickly and 

with fewer defects by focusing the welding beam in an 

oblong shape. Id. at col. 4 ll. 18-22. The independent 

asserted claim reads: 

1. A method of welding using a high energy density radiation beam comprising the steps of: 

(a) providing 1) a pair of sheets to be welded together with the sheets being constructed of a material having a Pdens min characteristic value 

with Pdens min being the minimum average 

power density of a high energy density radiation 

beam focused as a beam spot on at least one of the 
3 LASERFACTURING v. OLD CARCO

sheets necessary to achieve deep penetration keyhole welding for the type of sheet material being 

welded in Watts per square centimeter, 2) a high 

energy density radiation beam source capable of 

generating a high energy density radiation beam 

having an average power, P, of at least one kilowatt and which is great enough to achieve deep 

penetration keyhole mode welding for the material being welded, and 3) a beam delivery system 

capable of focusing the beam into an oblong 

shaped spot onto at least one of the sheets; 

(b) positioning one sheet in close proximity to the 

other sheet forming a weld line; 

(c) focusing the high energy density radiation 

beam into an oblong focused beam spot shape having a longitudinal length, L, in millimeters, and a 

width, w, in millimeters, such that the focused 

beam spot width, w, satisfies: 

w2 ≤ (P/15) * (106/Pdens min) 

and the length, L, of the oblong focused beam spot 

is within the following limits: 

1.5*w ≤ L ≤ (P/w) * (10/Pdens min) 

(d) training the oblong focused beam spot onto at 

least one of the sheets for welding the one sheet to 

the other sheet, and wherein a longitudinal axis of 

the oblong focused beam spot is acutely angled 

within the range of +45 degrees from a direction 

parallel to a direction tangent to the weld line; 

and 

(e) moving the beam relative to at least one of the 

sheets in a welding direction along the weld line 

at a welding speed of at least two meters per minute. 
LASERFACTURING v. OLD CARCO 4

Id. at col. 20 ll. 50 - col. 21 ll. 24 (emphasis added to 

disputed term). 

Laserfacturing alleges that three of DaimlerChrysler’s 

laser welding stations at its transmission manufacturing 

plants infringe the ’670 patent. The court held a claim 

construction hearing to address several disputed claim 

terms, including the term “sheet.” DaimlerChrysler 

proposed that “sheet” means a “broad thin piece of material with generally uniform thickness” while Laserfacturing proposed “element to be welded.” DaimlerChrysler 

also moved for summary judgment of non-infringement 

based on its proposed construction of “sheet,” arguing that 

it welds “transmissions” not “broad thin pieces of material 

each with generally uniform thickness.” In response, 

Laserfacturing attacked both the motion as premature 

and DaimlerChrysler’s proposed construction as incorrect. 

The district court adopted DaimlerChrysler’s construction 

and granted summary judgment of non-infringement. 

The trial court reasoned that the welded “transmission” is 

not a “sheet” under the court’s construction. Moreover the 

district court discerned that the accused devices do not 

practice at least one limitation of the asserted claim. 

Laserfacturing appeals only the construction of “sheets.” 

II. 

As a preliminary matter, this court examines jurisdiction. After this appeal was instituted, DaimlerChrysler 

filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection. This court 

stayed the appeal pending resolution of the bankruptcy 

proceedings. During the bankruptcy proceedings, DaimlerChrysler became known as Chrysler LLC, which became known as Old Carco. The Liquidation Trust is Old 

Carco’s successor-in-interest. Old Carco and Laserfacturing filed a joint stipulation requesting this court to proceed with this appeal. The bankruptcy court approved 
5 LASERFACTURING v. OLD CARCO

that stipulation. Following Laserfacturing’s request, this 

court reinstated the appeal. 

Chrysler Group LLC, who purchased substantially all 

of the Liquidation Trust’s operating assets, submitted an 

amicus curiae brief urging this court to dismiss for lack of 

jurisdiction. Chrysler contends the appeal is moot because 

Laserfacturing stipulated that it waived its claim against 

the estate relating to the current litigation. 

The stipulated waiver, however, does not resolve the 

parties’ infringement dispute. As this court explained in 

Kimberly-Clark Corp. v. Procter & Gamble Distribution 

Co., settlements generally render a case moot, unless “the 

case as a whole remains alive because other issues have 

not become moot.” 973 F.2d 911, 914 (Fed. Cir. 1992) 

(citing Local No. 8–6, Oil, Chem. & Atomic Workers Int’l 

Union v. Missouri, 361 U.S. 363, 368–69 (1960) and 

quoting Univ. of Texas v. Camenisch, 451 U.S. 390, 394 

(1981).) In the present case, the stipulation does not 

address the issue of infringement, which could have 

downstream effects on the parties or their successors; 

accordingly, the issue remains live and in dispute. Because the question of infringement is not moot, this court 

has jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1295. 

III. 

Claim construction is an issue of law which this court 

reviews without deference. Markman v. Westview Instruments, 52 F.3d 967, 979 (Fed. Cir. 1995) (en banc) 

aff’d 517 U.S. 370 (1996). The best evidence of the proper 

meaning of a claim term is the patent itself, and the 

prosecution history if available. Id. A claim term is 

typically construed as it would be by one of ordinary skill 

in the art in the context of the entire patent. Phillips v. 

AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1312-13 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en 

banc). In order to help determine how one of ordinary 
LASERFACTURING v. OLD CARCO 6

skill in the art would interpret a claim term, the court 

may consider extrinsic sources that inform the judge on 

the relevant scientific principles and state of the art. 

InnovalPure Water, Inc. v. Safari Water Filtration Sys., 

Inc., 318 F.3d 1111, 1116 (Fed. Cir. 2004). If the patentee 

clearly defines a claim term in the specification differently 

from what the word would ordinarily mean, the patentee’s 

definition governs. CCS Fitness, Inc. v. Brunswick Corp., 

288 F.3d 1349, 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2002). 

Laserfacturing argues the specification supports its 

broad construction of “sheet” as an “element to be 

welded.” Laserfacturing contends the patent’s welding 

descriptions are not limited to the court’s construction of a 

“broad thin piece of material with generally uniform 

thickness” and references the patent’s description of 

welding in the prior art for support. ’670 patent at col. 1 

ll. 22-26 (“For example, when laser welding metal sheets, 

the suitable welding speeds that can be achieved are 

typically a direct function of the penetration depth required. Hence, as sheet thickness increases welding 

speed typically decreases.”). Laserfacturing argues the 

art of welding is only concerned with the region being 

welded and the court’s limitation restricting the word 

“sheet” to objects having uniform thickness is arbitrary, 

improperly narrow, and limited to the certain embodiments disclosed in the specification. Laserfacturing also 

contends the patent’s use of the term “workpiece” supports its broad construction of “sheets” as simply the 

material that is being welded. 

The specification’s references to other various material shapes do not require an all-inclusive construction of 

“sheets.” As the district court noted, all “sheets” are 

“workpieces” but not all “workpieces” are “sheets.” The 

patent consistently discusses the term “sheets” according 

to its plain and ordinary meaning. By staying within the 
7 LASERFACTURING v. OLD CARCO

term’s customary use, the intrinsic record does not support a definition that reaches beyond or differs from what 

one of ordinary skill in the art understands as “sheets.” 

Moreover, a broad meaning of the term would discount 

the claim’s choice of the word “sheets.” Thus, the language of the claim itself supports the trial court’s construction. 

The district court accurately referenced the specification and reviewed the term’s use in the specification to 

support its reading of the claim. The district court quoted 

three parts of the patent as support for its construction. 

The first sets out the preferred thickness of the sheet 

material, “[p]referably, the sheet material to be welded 

using this invention has a thickness of at least 0.5 millimeters . . . and the maximum sheet thickness is no 

greater than about 5 millimeters.” ’670 patent at col. 8 ll. 

54-57. The second describes the preferred starting material, “this method of welding . . . can preferably be implemented for use with . . . sheets uncoiled from coiled stock.” 

Id. at col. 8 ll. 12-16. The third describes the preferred 

shape after the welding process, “[a]fter welding, the 

sheets . . . preferably form a blank that can be formed 

using conventional forming methods such as bending, 

deep drawing . . . or another shaping or forming process.” 

The district court reasoned that using the term “sheet” in 

claims made it clear the material at issue was something 

“broad and thin” because broad, thin materials may more 

easily undergo “bending, . . . another shaping or forming 

process” and “uncoiled from coiled stock.” The court 

further noted the specification was consistent with the 

term’s plain and ordinary meaning. 

The district court’s construction was well-reasoned 

and supported by the ’670 patent. The district court did 

not import the specification’s limitations or preferred 

embodiments. Instead, the court gave meaning to the 
LASERFACTURING v. OLD CARCO 8

term as it was used throughout the specification. In 

addition, the trial court’s claim construction does not 

depart from a customary understanding of the term in 

this area of art. The record does not support construing 

“sheets” to include any and all elements that may be 

welded together. Therefore, the district court’s construction is consistent with the term’s use in the ’670 patent 

and its ordinary and customary meaning. Accordingly, 

the district court’s determination is affirmed. 

AFFIRMED