Source: https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/F3/107/1565/502501/
Timestamp: 2019-02-22 01:38:59
Document Index: 546650290

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 102', '§ 103', '§ 103', '§ 102', '§ 112', '§ 112']

Lawrence B. Lockwood, Plaintiff-appellant, v. American Airlines, Inc., Defendant-appellee, 107 F.3d 1565 (Fed. Cir. 1997) :: Justia
Justia › US Law › Case Law › Federal Courts › Courts of Appeals › Federal Circuit › 1997 › Lawrence B. Lockwood, Plaintiff-appellant, v. American Airlines, Inc., Defendant-appellee
Lawrence B. Lockwood, Plaintiff-appellant, v. American Airlines, Inc., Defendant-appellee, 107 F.3d 1565 (Fed. Cir. 1997)
US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit - 107 F.3d 1565 (Fed. Cir. 1997)
Lawrence B. Lockwood appeals from the final judgment of the United States District Court for the Southern District of California, Lockwood v. American Airlines, Inc., No. 91-1640E (CM) (S.D. Cal. Dec. 19, 1995), granting summary judgment in favor of American Airlines, Inc. In that summary judgment, the court held that (1) U.S. Patent Re. 32,115, U.S. Patent 4,567,359, and U.S. Patent 5,309,355 were not infringed by American's SABREvision reservation system, and that (2) the '355 patent and the asserted claims of the '359 patent were invalid under 35 U.S.C. § 102 and 35 U.S.C. § 103, respectively. Lockwood v. American Airlines, Inc., 834 F. Supp. 1246, 28 USPQ2d 1114 (S.D. Cal. 1993), req. for reconsideration denied, 847 F. Supp. 777 (S.D. Cal. 1994) (holding the '115 and '359 patents not infringed); Lockwood v. American Airlines, Inc., 877 F. Supp. 500, 34 USPQ2d 1290 (S.D. Cal. 1994) (holding the asserted claims of the '355 patent invalid and not infringed); Lockwood v. American Airlines, Inc., 37 USPQ2d 1534, 1995 WL 822659 (S.D. Cal. 1995) (holding the '359 patent invalid). Because the district court correctly determined that there were no genuine issues of material fact in dispute and that American was entitled to judgment as a matter of law, we affirm.
We review a district court's grant of summary judgment de novo. Conroy v. Reebok Int'l, Ltd., 14 F.3d 1570, 1575, 29 USPQ2d 1373, 1377 (Fed. Cir. 1994). Summary judgment is appropriate when no genuine issue as to any material fact exists and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c). Thus, summary judgment may be granted when no "reasonable jury could return a verdict for the nonmoving party." See Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248, 106 S. Ct. 2505, 2510, 91 L. Ed. 2d 202 (1986); Conroy, 14 F.3d at 1575, 29 USPQ2d at 1377 ("The moving party ... may discharge its burden by showing the district court that there is an absence of evidence to support the nonmoving party's case."). In determining whether there is a genuine issue of material fact, we view the evidence in the light most favorable to the party opposing the motion with doubts resolved in favor of the opponent. Transmatic, Inc. v. Gulton Indus., Inc., 53 F.3d 1270, 1274, 35 USPQ2d 1035, 1038 (Fed. Cir. 1995).
The district court held that the asserted claims of the '359 patent would have been obvious in light of the prior art '631 patent and the original SABRE system. A determination of obviousness under 35 U.S.C. § 103 is a legal conclusion involving factual inquiries. Uniroyal, Inc. v. Rudkin-Wiley Corp., 837 F.2d 1044, 1050, 5 USPQ2d 1434, 1438 (Fed. Cir. 1988). Lockwood argues that the subject matter of the '359 claims would not have been obvious and that the district court impermissibly drew adverse factual inferences in concluding that the patent was invalid. Lockwood first argues that the district court erred in concluding that the SABRE system qualified as prior art.
If a device was "known or used by others" in this country before the date of invention or if it was "in public use" in this country more than one year before the date of application, it qualifies as prior art. See 35 U.S.C. § 102(a) and (b) (1994). Lockwood attempts to preclude summary judgment by pointing to record testimony that one skilled in the art would not be able to build and practice the claimed invention without access to the secret aspects of SABRE. However, it is the claims that define a patented invention. See Constant v. Advanced Micro-Devices, Inc., 848 F.2d 1560, 1571, 7 USPQ2d 1057, 1064 (Fed. Cir. 1988). As we have concluded earlier in this opinion, American's public use of the high-level aspects of the SABRE system was enough to place the claimed features of the '359 patent in the public's possession. See In re Epstein, 32 F.3d 1559, 1567-68, 31 USPQ2d 1817, 1823 (Fed. Cir. 1994) ("Beyond this 'in public use or on sale' finding, there is no requirement for an enablement-type inquiry."). Lockwood cannot negate this by evidence showing that other, unclaimed aspects of the SABRE system were not publicly available. Moreover, the '359 patent itself does not disclose the level of detail that Lockwood would have us require of the prior art. For these reasons, Lockwood fails to show a genuine issue of material fact precluding summary judgment.
Lockwood further argues that even if the SABRE system is effective prior art, the combination of that system and the '631 patent would not have yielded the invention of the '359 patent. The terminal in the claims of the '359 patent includes a number of means-plus-function limitations, subject to 35 U.S.C. § 112, p 6, including "means for gathering information from a customer" and "means for storing a sequence of audio and video information to be selectively transmitted to a customer." Means-plus-function clauses are construed "as limited to the corresponding structure [s] disclosed in the specification and equivalents thereof." In re Donaldson Co., 16 F.3d 1189, 1195, 29 USPQ2d 1845, 1850 (Fed. Cir. 1994) (in banc); see 35 U.S.C. § 112, p 6 (1994). Lockwood argues that the structures disclosed in the '359 patent differ substantially from the terminal disclosed in the '631 patent and that, at the very least, his expert's declaration raised genuine issues of material fact sufficient to preclude summary judgment.
Lockwood argues that the district court erred by looking solely at the applications themselves. We do not agree. It is the disclosures of the applications that count. Entitlement to a filing date does not extend to subject matter which is not disclosed, but would be obvious over what is expressly disclosed. It extends only to that which is disclosed. While the meaning of terms, phrases, or diagrams in a disclosure is to be explained or interpreted from the vantage point of one skilled in the art, all the limitations must appear in the specification. The question is not whether a claimed invention is an obvious variant of that which is disclosed in the specification. Rather, a prior application itself must describe an invention, and do so in sufficient detail that one skilled in the art can clearly conclude that the inventor invented the claimed invention as of the filing date sought. See Martin v. Mayer, 823 F.2d 500, 504, 3 USPQ2d 1333, 1337 (Fed. Cir. 1987) (stating that it is "not a question of whether one skilled in the art might be able to construct the patentee's device from the teachings of the disclosure.... Rather, it is a question whether the application necessarily discloses that particular device.") (quoting Jepson v. Coleman, 50 C.C.P.A. 1051, 314 F.2d 533, 536, 136 USPQ 647, 649-50 (1963)). Lockwood argues that all that is necessary to satisfy the description requirement is to show that one is "in possession" of the invention. Lockwood accurately states the test, see Vas-Cath Inc. v. Mahurkar, 935 F.2d 1555, 1563-64, 19 USPQ2d 1111, 1117 (Fed. Cir. 1991), but fails to state how it is satisfied. One shows that one is "in possession" of the invention by describing the invention, with all its claimed limitations, not that which makes it obvious. Id. (" [T]he applicant must also convey to those skilled in the art that, as of the filing date sought, he or she was in possession of the invention. The invention is, for purposes of the 'written description' inquiry, whatever is now claimed.") (emphasis in original). One does that by such descriptive means as words, structures, figures, diagrams, formulas, etc., that fully set forth the claimed invention. Although the exact terms need not be used in haec verba, see Eiselstein v. Frank, 52 F.3d 1035, 1038, 34 USPQ2d 1467, 1470 (Fed. Cir. 1995) (" [T]he prior application need not describe the claimed subject matter in exactly the same terms as used in the claims ...."), the specification must contain an equivalent description of the claimed subject matter. A description which renders obvious the invention for which an earlier filing date is sought is not sufficient.
Determining whether a patent claim has been infringed requires a two-step analysis: "First, the claim must be properly construed to determine its scope and meaning. Second, the claim as properly construed must be compared to the accused device or process." Carroll Touch, Inc. v. Electro Mechanical Sys., Inc., 15 F.3d 1573, 1576, 27 USPQ2d 1836, 1839 (Fed. Cir. 1993). Claim construction is to be determined by the court. Markman v. Westview Instruments, Inc., --- U.S. ----, ----, 116 S. Ct. 1384, 1387, 134 L. Ed. 2d 577, 38 USPQ2d 1461, 1463 (1996) ("We hold that the construction of a patent, including terms of art within its claim, is exclusively within the province of the court."). In construing the claims, the court looks to the claims, the specification, the prosecution history, and, if necessary, extrinsic evidence. Vitronics Corp. v. Conceptronic, Inc., 90 F.3d 1576, 1582, 39 USPQ2d 1573, 1576 (Fed. Cir. 1996). Application of the properly construed claim to the accused device is a question of fact.
American argues that Lockwood's interpretation of these terms is flatly inconsistent with his interpretation before the Patent and Trademark Office (PTO). We agree. The limitation "self-contained apparatus dimensioned to be easily transported" was added after the PTO rejected Lockwood's claims as obvious in light of a business transaction computer system disclosed in U.S. Patent 3,705,384. In response to the rejection, Lockwood distinguished the prior art system, which was composed of multiple cabinets that filled a room, stating, " [a]pplicant's device, on the other hand, is a free-standing self contained unit which can be moved from location to location." During the prosecution of the patent, Lockwood thus differentiated his device from the prior art because of its compact physical dimensions, not because of its ability to "function on its own." In fact, the interpretation of the words "self-contained" that Lockwood now advances is insufficient to distinguish his invention from the prior art because the prior art patent also discloses a system that can function independently. Lockwood cannot now argue for an interpretation inconsistent with this earlier representation. "Claims may not be construed one way in order to obtain their allowance and in a different way against accused infringers." Southwall Techs., Inc. v. Cardinal IG Co., 54 F.3d 1570, 1576, 34 USPQ2d 1673, 1677 (Fed. Cir.), cert. denied, --- U.S. ----, 116 S. Ct. 515, 133 L. Ed. 2d 424 (1995); see Unique Concepts, Inc. v. Brown, 939 F.2d 1558, 1562, 19 USPQ2d 1500, 1504 (Fed. Cir. 1991).
Lockwood also argues that the district court erred in concluding on summary judgment that there was no infringement under the doctrine of equivalents. Lockwood first argues that the district court impermissibly imposed an equitable threshold before applying the doctrine. Because the court proceeded to apply the doctrine notwithstanding its statements regarding equitable factors, see Hebert v. Lisle Corp., 99 F.3d 1109, 1117, 40 USPQ2d 1611, 1616 (Fed. Cir. 1996) ("As discussed in Hilton Davis [Chemical Co. v. Warner-Jenkinson Co.], 62 F.3d [1512] at 1521, 35 USPQ2d [1641] at 1647-48 [(Fed. Cir. 1995)], infringement by technologic equivalents, like literal infringement, does not have an equitable threshold."), this error was harmless. After analyzing the prosecution history, the court correctly concluded that prosecution history estoppel precludes a finding of infringement under the doctrine of equivalents.
Prosecution history estoppel precludes a patentee from obtaining in an infringement suit protection for subject matter which it relinquished during prosecution in order to obtain allowance of the claims. Zenith Lab., Inc. v. Bristol-Myers Squibb Co., 19 F.3d 1418, 1424, 30 USPQ2d 1285, 1290 (Fed. Cir. 1994). "Whenever prosecution history estoppel is invoked as a limitation to infringement under the doctrine of equivalents, 'a close examination must be made as to, not only what was surrendered, but also the reason for such a surrender.' " Insta-Foam Prods., Inc. v. Universal Foam Sys., Inc., 906 F.2d 698, 703, 15 USPQ2d 1295, 1298 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (quoting Bayer Aktiengesellschaft v. Duphar Int'l Research B.V., 738 F.2d 1237, 1243, 222 USPQ 649, 653 (Fed. Cir. 1984)).
In addition, the '359 patent specification states that an object of the invention is to dispense "services to the general public on a self-service basis from remote terminals." An additional object of the invention is to provide services "by means of [a] simulated personal interview with a factitious agent created by audio-visual devices from prerecorded sound, images and synthesized data." The terminal is programmed to "audiovisually elicit from the customer the information necessary to provide an insurance quotation," thereby saving time and money because "the companies do not have to provide so many sales personnel to deal with such multitude of queries on a one-to-one basis." Although " [r]eferences to a preferred embodiment, such as those often present in a specification, are not claim limitations," Laitram Corp. v. Cambridge Wire Cloth Co., 863 F.2d 855, 865, 9 USPQ2d 1289, 1299 (Fed. Cir. 1988), " [w]e look to the specification for assistance in construing a claim." Carroll Touch, Inc. v. Electro Mechanical Sys., Inc., 15 F.3d 1573, 1577, 27 USPQ2d 1836, 1840 (Fed. Cir. 1993). As with the '115 patent, this specification clearly indicates that the term "customer" refers to the prospective purchaser of the services and excludes the sales agent whom the invention is intended to replace. Accordingly, the district court correctly held as a matter of law that SABREvision does not infringe the '359 patent.
Likewise, the district court correctly concluded that prosecution history estoppel precludes a finding of infringement under the doctrine of equivalents. During prosecution, Lockwood explicitly distinguished the prior art, stating, " [t]his system is thus not simply a self-service sales center linked to a central computer, as is known in the prior art, but completely replaces the sales person's role in soliciting the necessary information from the customer." (emphasis added). Lockwood argues that there can be no estoppel because the statement was not made in response to a rejection over the prior art. We disagree. Lockwood made this statement before any claims in the '359 patent were allowed. To the extent that prior art self-service sales centers employed sales personnel, Lockwood distinguished his invention on the basis that it did not require any sales personnel to collect customer information. The court properly determined that Lockwood surrendered coverage by drawing this distinction between his invention and the prior art. See Ekchian v. Home Depot, Inc., 104 F.3d 1299, 1304, 41 USPQ2d 1364, 1368 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (" [S]ince, by distinguishing the claimed invention over the prior art, an applicant is indicating what the claims do not cover, he is by implication surrendering such protection."). Therefore, Lockwood is estopped from asserting that SABREvision, which requires travel agents to collect customer information, contains an equivalent to the claimed "customer operated input means."Lockwood also challenges the district court's conclusion that SABREvision lacks "automated merchandising apparatus" including "a means for composing and displaying individualized sales presentations" and "means for selectively combining" as claimed in the '355 patent. Lockwood argues that his expert's affidavit raised a genuine issue of material fact by demonstrating the equivalency between the SABREvision structure and the structure disclosed in the '355 patent specification. Lockwood does not dispute that a travel agent, when operating SABREvision, must manually select and view one photograph at a time from a generated list. The court held that this type of operation is not "composing" a sales presentation within the literal meaning of the claims. The functionality of SABREvision is undisputed. Because SABREvision does not perform the functions required by the properly construed claims, e.g., it does not "compose" an "individualized sales presentation" within the meaning of the claims, there is no need to compare the structure of the accused device to the structure disclosed in the patent. Valmont Indus., Inc. v. Reinke Mfg. Co., 983 F.2d 1039, 1042, 25 USPQ2d 1451, 1454 (Fed. Cir. 1993) ("The accused device must ... perform the identical function as specified in the claims"). Thus, no doctrine of equivalents issue having been raised, the district court correctly held as a matter of law that SABREvision does not infringe the claims of the '355 patent.