Opinion ID: 212848
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Eccentric Weight Portion

Text: The term eccentric weight portion appears in independent claims 1, 6, 11, and 16. The district courts construed the term as follows: ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Virginia California ---------------------------------------------------------------------- That portion of the counterweight The bottom portion of the that extends counterweight, which either forward or rearward extends forward from the from the front or back face front face of the gear of the gear portion such portion, containing more that it shifts the center of weight than the top portion gravity radially outward due to its larger mass, including from the gear's rotational at least one insert-receiving axis. area formed therein to receive at least one solid tungsten rod. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- American Piledriving argues that both district courts erred by importing structural limitations from a preferred embodiment of the invention into their respective constructions. It contends that, although not explicitly recited in their constructions, each court erroneously required that the eccentric weight portion be separate and distinct from the cylindrical gear portion. American Piledriving asserts that one of skill in the art would have understood that the term should be defined functionally and not be structurally limited, as the specification makes repeated reference to the purpose of the eccentric weight portion: creating an uneven weight distribution around the body of the gear. American Piledriving argues that, when properly interpreted, the term includes any unevenly distributed weight within the counterweight. The Defendants contend that neither court improperly read limitations from the preferred embodiment into their respective construction of eccentric weight portion. They assert that both courts recognized that the eccentric weight portion and the cylindrical gear portion are distinct parts of a counterweight. This court agrees with American Piledriving that the California court improperly imported limitations from the specification into its construction of eccentric weight portion, but concludes that the Virginia court correctly construed the term. This court reviews claim construction de novo. Cybor Corp. v. FAS Techs., 138 F.3d 1448, 1451 (Fed.Cir.1998) (en banc). Claim terms are generally given their ordinary and customary meaning, namely the meaning that the term would have to a person of ordinary skill in the art in question at the time of the invention. Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1313. To determine the ordinary and customary meaning of a claim term, courts turn to those sources available to the public that show what a person of skill in the art would have understood disputed claim language to mean. Id. at 1314 (quoting Innova/Pure Water, Inc. v. Safari Water Filtration Sys., Inc., 381 F.3d 1111, 1116 (Fed.Cir.2004)). Those sources include the words of the claims themselves, the remainder of the specification, the prosecution history, and extrinsic evidence concerning relevant scientific principles, the meaning of technical terms, and the state of the art. Id. (quoting Innova, 381 F.3d at 1116). Because neither party provided cogent extrinsic evidence, this court looks only to the intrinsic evidencethe claims, specification, and prosecution history.
We begin our analysis with the language of the claims, as it provides substantial guidance as to the meaning of particular claim terms. Id. (citing Vitronics Corp. v. Conceptronic, Inc., 90 F.3d 1576, 1582 (Fed.Cir.1996)). The claims do not explicitly define the term eccentric weight portion, but the language does suggest that the term should not be construed as broadly as proposed by American Piledriving. For example, claim 16 recites an eccentric weight portion connected to said cylindrical gear portion. '964 Patent col.11 ll.13-14 (emphasis added). If, as suggested by American Piledriving, the term eccentric weight portion encompasses any portion of the counterweight that contributes to the uneven weight distribution around the body of the gear, the term would include the gear itself, as the gear is partly responsible for the uneven weight distribution of the counterweight. See id. col.5 ll.51-60 (explaining that the holes in the gear effectively reduce the amount of metal in the top portion [of the gear], thereby moving the center of gravity of the counterweight lower or radially away from the rotational axis) (reference numbers omitted). This interpretation cannot be correct as it would essentially require that the structure recited in claim 16 connect to itself. Both district courts recognized and American Piledriving does not disputethat the term eccentric weight portion is used consistently throughout the claims of the '964 Patent. Nothing suggests that the term has different meanings in different claims. Where a claim term is used consistently throughout the claims, the usage of [the] term in one claim can often illuminate the meaning of the same term in other claims. Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1314 (citation omitted). Thus, the meaning of the term eccentric weight portion apparent from claim 16 is equally applicable to independent claims 1, 6, and 11 as well.
We turn next to the specification as it is always highly relevant to the claim construction analysis. Usually, it is dispositive; it is the single best guide to the meaning of a disputed term. Id. at 1315 (citation omitted). Both district courts relied heavily on the following passage in the specification to reach their respective structural constructions of eccentric weight portion: The eccentric weight portion of the counterweight, which is formed integral with the gear portion, extends forward from the front face of the gear portion. The gear portion has a weight distribution with less weight provided by a top portion and more weight provided by a bottom portion as a result of the eccentric weight portion being connected thereto. '964 Patent col.5 ll.20-31 (emphasis added and internal reference numbers omitted). American Piledriving argues that this portion of the specification describes merely a preferred embodiment of the invention and that the structural descriptions of the gear portion and the eccentric weight portion are nothing more than exemplary of the structures capable of providing the needed weight imbalance. But the consistent reference throughout the specification to the eccentric weight portion as structure extending from the face of the gear makes it apparent that it relates to the invention as a whole, not just the preferred embodiment as contended by American Piledriving. This court has indicated that a statement in a specification that describes the invention as a whole can support a limiting construction of a claim term. Cf. C.R. Bard, Inc. v. U.S. Surgical Corp., 388 F.3d 858, 864 (Fed.Cir.2004). That is especially true where, as here, other statements and illustrations in the patent are consistent with the limiting description. The specification repeatedly uses the words thereto or therewith to describe the relationship between the cylindrical gear portion and the eccentric weight portion. See '964 Patent Abstract; col.5 ll.25-27. These words suggest a structural construction of eccentric weight portion, as they describe the eccentric weight portion according to its location relative to other components, not the function it performs. The specification also describes balancing the eccentric weight portion such that it hangs at its lowest point. Id. col.9 ll.11-17. This description of the eccentric weight portion further suggests a structural rather than a functional construction. Moreover, as noted above, the specification explains that apertures in the top of the gear contribute to the uneven weight distribution in the bottom of the counterweight, yet the specification makes no mention of this weight being part of the eccentric weight portion. Finally, the relevant figures each show the eccentric weight portion extending from the face of the gear. Id. Figures 2, 3A, 3B, and 4.
American Piledriving contends that the prosecution history supports defining eccentric weight portion in an entirely functional manner. American Piledriving argues that during reexamination it consistently treated the eccentric weight portion generally as the uneven distribution of weight that moves the center of gravity away from the rotational axis. But it also stated that an `eccentric weight portion' is a weighted portion or section that is situated to one side with reference to a center [of the counterweight]. Reply to Office Action of May 12, 2006, at 4 (June 6, 2006). Describing the eccentric weight portion according to its placement in relation to the center of the counterweight is entirely consistent with the construction of the district courts as structure extending from the gear portion.