Opinion ID: 3066251
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: “Magnetic cores”

Text: At the district court, SEDECAL argued that “magnetic cores” refers to two core legs, which are connected by yokes. Merits Op., 47 F. Supp. 3d at 385. The district court rejected this argument based on its construction of “two insulated chambers” and because nothing in the ’829 patent suggested that the “claimed device [had] core ‘legs’ or ‘yokes’ or indicates that the device contains anything less than two magnetic cores.” Id. The district court noted that it is undisputed that a transformer with two separate magnetic cores that are isolated and sealed off from each other would be inoperable. See id. at 386–87. SOCIEDAD ESPANOLA v. BLUE RIDGE X-RAY COMPANY 9 SEDECAL continues to argue that the “magnetic cores” refers to core legs. It contends that the phrase “magnetic cores” is a synecdoche: it sometimes means a full core ring but, in other contexts, it means just the legs of a full core ring. The second meaning should be applied here, SEDECAL believes, because it is the only interpretation that makes the claims operable. Blue Ridge, on the other hand, argues that the plain and ordinary meaning of “magnetic cores” only refers to full core rings and not to core legs. Both parties argue that the figures of the ’829 patent support their positions. Figure 1 of the ’829 patent shows a yoke connecting the 7 and 7’ core legs that are found in the two chambers, while Figure 3 shows no connection between the two chambers. SEDECAL argues that there is more to the transformer in Figure 3 than meets the eye and it actually allows for a yoke between the two legs. That yoke was omitted because it was “not relevant to what is being shown.” Appellant’s Br. at 34. Blue Ridge claims that “there is a contradiction between” Figures 1 and 3. Appellee’s Br. at 38. In this context, the term “magnetic cores” refers to the legs of a full core ring. The district court’s construction to the contrary was error. First, Figure 1 of the ’829 patent shows a yoke connecting the 7 and 7’ core legs. While that yoke is absent in Figure 3, it is more reasonable to conclude that Figure 3 omitted certain elements of the transformer for the sake of brevity than to find Figures 1 and 3 contradictory, as Blue Ridge claims. Second, the plain and ordinary meaning of the phrase “magnetic core” can refer to core legs. For example, Blue Ridge concedes that in U.S. Patent No. 6,278,355 (the “’355 patent”), the patentees—including Philip J. Hopkinson, Blue Ridge’s expert in this case—“clearly and expressly equated the terms ‘leg,’ ‘core,’ ‘magnetic core,’ and ‘transformer core,’ and consistently used those terms to 10 SOCIEDAD ESPANOLA v. BLUE RIDGE X-RAY COMPANY mean the same thing.” Appellee’s Br. at 36; see id. (the patent “repeatedly us[ed] these different terms interchangeably to refer to the same item”). While it is true that the ’829 patent actually uses the phrase “core leg[s]” to describe the prior art, see ’829 patent col.2 ll.8–14, that is not persuasive evidence that the term “magnetic core” does not mean “core legs.” “[T]he general assump- tion . . . that different terms have different meanings” applies to “terms in the body of a claim,” but not necessarily elsewhere in the specification where the context indicates otherwise. Symantec Corp. v. Computer Assocs., Int’l, Inc., 522 F.3d 1279, 1289 (Fed. Cir. 2008). Blue Ridge argues that a synecdoche is inherently ambiguous and should, therefore, be construed against SEDECAL. That is not the law. Where a claim term “ha[s] more than one plain and ordinary meaning,” we look to the specification to ascertain which definition is intended. See Kaneka Corp. v. Xiamen Kingdomway Grp. Co., --- F.3d ----, 2015 WL 3613644, at  (Fed. Cir. June 10, 2015). From the foregoing, we conclude that the phrase “magnetic core” as used in the specification of the ’829 patent refers to core legs connected by yokes. The district court’s contrary conclusion is unsupported by the specification and is erroneous.