Opinion ID: 222579
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Claim Construction of “Rear Wheels”

Text: Target contends that the district court erred in construing “rear wheels” in claim 1 to mean “rear wheels of the push-chair.” Target argues that the context of the other limitations in claim 1 imposes two criteria on “rear wheels”: they must be “(1) ‘attached’ to the ‘frame’ of the stroller and (2) ‘mounted adjacent the trailing edge of the platform.’” Cross-Appellant Br. 50. According to Target, “just as in [Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2005)], the intrinsic evidence does not support a ‘restrictive definition’ of ‘rear wheels’ that includes the modifier ‘of the push-chair,’ and the ordinary meaning of the term—‘rear wheels’ means ‘rear wheels’—must govern here, limited only by the [] criteria imposed by Claim 1.” Id. at 53. Joovy counters that it is clear from the claim language that “rear wheels” means “rear wheels of the push-chair.” According to Joovy, “[b]ecause the ‘push-chair [of claim 1] . . . comprise[s] . . . rear wheels,’ those wheels are necessarily the ‘rear wheels of the push-chair’” and not the rear wheels on any attached platform. Appellant Resp. & Reply Br. 22. Joovy also contends that “[a]ll of the references to ‘rear wheels’ throughout the specification clearly denote that the referenced ‘rear wheels’ are the ‘rear wheels’ of the push-chair.” Id. at 23. Finally, relying on Rexnord Corp. v. Laitram Corp., Joovy contends that this court must construe “rear wheels” in claim 1 consistently with its meaning in dependent Claim 6. 274 F.3d 1336, 1342 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (“[A] claim term should be construed consistently with its appearance in other places in the same claim or in other claims of the same patent.”). Joovy argues that Claim 6 requires the rear wheels to be a part of the push-chair. This court disagrees with Joovy’s argument, which is contradicted by the words of the claim itself. Claim 1 8 JOOVY LLC v. TARGET CORP. recites, inter alia, (1) “a frame to which is attached front and rear wheels,” and (2) “a platform . . . , the rear wheels being mounted adjacent the trailing edge of the platform.” ’375 Patent, col. 5, l. 24-col. 6, l. 2. The limitations in claim 1 require the rear wheels to be attached to the frame of the push-chair by means of a platform at a “lower rear position on the frame.” Id. col. 5, l. 29. Similarly, the specification indicates that the rear wheels are mounted near the frame, id. col. 2, l. 49, at the trailing edge of the platform, id. col. 1, ll. 51-52. Thus, the claim language and specification indicate that the rear wheels of claim 1 must be attached to the frame of the push-chair via the platform of the push-chair, with no suggestion that the rear wheels must be part of the push-chair as distinct from the platform. Nothing recited in dependent Claim 6, which calls for the rear wheels to accommodate “a lever operated braking mechanism” that is “located forward of axles of the rear wheels” and “coupled” to the push-chair via a “coupling rod,” changes that conclusion. Id. col. 6, ll. 23-27. The objective of Claim 6—attaching a braking mechanism from the push-chair to the rear wheels—“should not be read restrictively to require that the [rear wheels] in each case serve all of the recited functions.” Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1327. The term “rear wheels” may be construed consistently in both Claims 1 and 6 to mean “rear wheels,” limited only by the specific attachment and mounting requirements found in the claims themselves. This construction squarely comports with the general requirement that claim terms be construed consistently throughout a patent. See Rexnord, 274 F.3d at 1342. Accordingly, this court holds that the district court erred in importing the modifier “of the push-chair” into the definition of the term “rear wheels” in claim 1. JOOVY LLC v. TARGET CORP 9