Opinion ID: 210676
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Angularly offset

Text: 36 As noted above, the district court interpreted the claim requirement that the hole axes be angularly offset to mean that the axes of the three holes are spaced apart from each other, an angle is formed by the axes of any two such holes when viewed in two dimensions from the butt end or from the side, and the axes are not aligned in a parallel orientation. Neither party challenges this definition on appeal, but Stryker argues that its accused product does not fall within the definition. 37 Stryker's argument is geometrical in nature. A hole axis under the district court's definition is the imaginary line that passes through the center of one of the transverse holes. Stryker correctly points out that the axes thus defined by the accused product form skew lines which are neither parallel nor intersecting in three-dimensional space. Since those lines neither form angles nor run parallel with each other, Stryker suggests that its product falls outside the district court's definition. However, this argument ignores an essential part of that definition, which states that an angle is formed . . . when [the hole axes are] viewed in two dimensions.  The district court's meaning here is clear: the hole axes need not actually intersect. It suffices that the axes appear to intersect in two dimensions. As an example, if the hole axes are sketched on a piece of paper (a two-dimensional view of the nail) and the lines of that drawing intersect, the product drawn meets the district court's definition of angularly offset. It is totally clear that the hole axes of Stryker's product intersect when drawn on paper, a point well illustrated by Stryker's own diagram in support of its argument on this point: 38 NOTE: OPINION CONTAINING TABLE OR OTHER DATA THAT IS NOT VIEWABLE 39 This diagram, which represents the accused product, shows intersecting hole axes when viewed in two dimensions. The jury's finding that Stryker's product embodies the angularly offset claim limitation is therefore supported by substantial evidence.