Opinion ID: 208961
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: engaging

Text: The district court construed engaging to mean coming together and interlocking. Literal Infringement Op. at 2. Felix argues for a broader construction of contacting or bringing together. Appellant's Br. at 23. In support of this broader construction, Felix offers two arguments. First, Felix argues that the dictionary definition of engaging should control, because the meaning of the term is not discussed in the claims, specification, or prosecution history. Felix then argues that the dictionary defines `engage' as `to bring together'citing page 612 of the Joint Appendix. Id. at 24. This statement is false and misleading in several respects. First, there is no definition of engage on page 612 of the Joint Appendix; that page includes a dictionary definition of mount. The only dictionary definitions of engage appear several pages later. Second, the only dictionary definition of engage anywhere in the Joint Appendix that includes bring together isin fullto bring together or interlock ( weapons ). J.A. 618. Thus, for a second time, Felix's brief has omitted a parenthetical qualificationhere, weaponsthat significantly limits the quoted definition. But even more inexcusably, Felix's brief excluded the phrase or interlock from the quoted definition. This is particularly misleading because the only substantive difference between the district court's construction and Felix's proposed construction is that the district court's construction requires the additional element of interlocking. We reject Felix's misleading dictionary definition argument. We further remind counsel of the importance of providing full, accurate, and undistorted quotations and citations in briefing before this court. Second, Felix argues that the district court's construction excludes every embodiment of the invention of the '625 patent, because the drawings of the patent show the gasket merely coming into contact with the lid. This argument is without merit. The gasket limitation requires the gasket to engage the lid when the lid is in its closed position. '625 patent col. 6 l.2. Of the drawings, only figure 2 shows the lid in its closed position, and figure 2 does not depict the gasket at all. Id. fig.2. The remaining figures all show the lid in its open position. There is nothing in those figures that is inconsistent with the gasket interlocking the lid when the lid is closed. Although we reject all of Felix's arguments, we nevertheless conclude that the district court erred by construing engaging to require interlocking. The specification includes a single clause directed to the relationship between the lid and the gasket when the lid is closed: a closed position (FIG.2) with the gasket 18 sealingly engaging the lid 22 adjacent to its edges 22 a-d on the lid lower surface 22. Id. col. 3 ll. 24-26 (emphasis added). The specification's use of the phrase sealingly engaging makes clear that the way that the gasket engages the lid is by forming a seal. This, of course, is the normal function of a gasket. See, e.g., Means Illustrated Construction Dictionary 275 (3d ed.2000) (defining gasket as [a]ny of a variety of seals made from resilient materials and placed between two joining parts (as between a door and its frame, an oil filter and its seat, pipe threads and their fitting, etc.) to prevent the leakage of air, water, gas, or fluid); Don Goodsell, Dictionary of Automotive Engineering 97 (2d ed.1995) (defining gasket as a static seal used to contain pressure and prevent leakage...). In contrast to sealing, interlocking suggests that some part of the gasket must be constrained or in some manner held by some part of the lid, beyond simply being sealed to the lid. Like the specification, the prosecution history of the '625 patent nowhere suggests that engaging means interlocking. Because we find no basis for such additional limitation in the specification or prosecution history, we modify the district court's construction of engaging as used in claim 6 of the '625 patent to mean coming together to form a seal. Even though the district court erred in including interlocking in its claim construction, the error is harmless as it does not affect the district court's determinations of either literal infringement or infringement under the doctrine of equivalents.