Opinion ID: 706034
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Apparatus for displaying an advertisement above the roof of a vehicle, comprising:

Text: 9 a vehicle having a wide window which extends generally vertically and approximately parallel to the direction of vehicle travel; 10 an aerodynamic member having a leading edge, a trailing edge and side surfaces between the edges, the member having a longitudinal dimension between the edges and lateral dimensions between the side surfaces, the longitudinal dimension being substantially greater than the lateral dimensions; 11 means including an upstanding brace means for releasably attaching the aerodynamic member to the vehicle window with the side surfaces extending generally vertically, the attaching means including a window mount having a portion dimensioned to pass across the top and engage the vehicle window; 12 the upstanding brace means rigidly joined with the window mount at spaced points and joined with the aerodynamic member at spaced points so as to prevent rotation of the aerodynamic member and maintain the longitudinal dimension extending in a direction generally parallel with the direction of vehicle travel; and wherein 13 at least one of the side surfaces defines an area to which an advertising medium can be affixed [emphasis added]. 14 At trial, ICC urged a narrow claim interpretation. ICC took the position that the upstanding brace means recited in the asserted claims is limited, pursuant to 35 U.S.C. Sec. 112, p 6, to the structure disclosed in the specification of the '994 patent, namely, a vertical brace that extends into and through the sign body. The '994 patent does not describe any other brace structure or suggest any possible equivalent structure. 15 Consistent with this claim interpretation, ICC's own expert, Herb Furman, testified no fewer than three times that the prior art Billow sign lacked an upstanding brace means. Furman testified that in the Kevin Billow sign, Exhibit 24, I don't find any upstanding brace means. He later stated, Again, the upstanding brace means ... I don't find it in the Billow sign, Exhibit 24.... He then repeated that [i]n the Kevin Billow sign, Exhibit 24, ... I don't find any upstanding brace.... Furman's testimony was based on the fact that the braces in the Billow sign did not extend into and through the sign body. The jury reasonably could have concluded from Furman's testimony, which constitutes substantial evidence, that the Billow sign did not meet the upstanding brace means limitation and thus did not anticipate the claims. See Kloster Speedsteel AB v. Crucible, Inc., 793 F.2d 1565, 1571, 230 USPQ 81, 84 (Fed.Cir.1986) ([A]bsence from the [prior art] reference of any claimed element negates anticipation.), cert. denied, 479 U.S. 1034, 107 S.Ct. 882, 93 L.Ed.2d 836 (1987). 2 ICC's contrary position on appeal does not change the record below, including the testimony that ICC itself produced. 16 Furthermore, ICC does not point to any evidence in the record showing that the asserted claims would have been obvious over the Billow sign to one of ordinary skill in the relevant art at the time of the '994 invention. Thus, we have no basis to question the jury's rejection of ICC's Sec. 102/103 invalidity counterclaim. Accordingly, because the jury's validity determination was supported by substantial evidence, we affirm the district court's denial of ICC's motion for JMOL.