Opinion ID: 210959
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: All Accused Devices

Text: 62 Finally, Medtronic argues that the district court failed to properly construe the compression member limitation as a means-plus-function limitation, and that under a proper construction, all three accused devices do not infringe. Relying on Mas-Hamilton Group v. LaGard, Inc., 156 F.3d 1206, 1213 (Fed.Cir.1998), Medtronic argues on cross-appeal that compression member is properly construed as a means-plus-function limitation despite the absence of the term means and that when the claims are so construed, none of the accused structures infringe. Specifically, Medtronic argues that claim 1 of the '678 patent identifies compression member only in terms of function, not structure, and that no credible extrinsic evidence demonstrates that the term has a well-understood structural meaning in the relevant art. 63 DePuy counters that the absence of the term means creates a presumption that compression member is not a means-plus-function limitation, that all testifying engineers recognized that the term compression member referred to a well-known class of structures, that claim 1 itself imposes certain constraints on the structure of the compression member, and thus the district court's construction was correct. 64 Means-plus-function claiming applies only to purely functional limitations that do not provide the structure that performs the recited function. Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1311 (citing Watts v. XL Sys. Inc., 232 F.3d 877, 880-81 (Fed.Cir.2000)). [A] claim term that does not use `means' will trigger the rebuttable presumption that [35 U.S.C.] § 112 ¶ 6 does not apply. CCS Fitness v. Brunswick Corp., 288 F.3d 1359, 1369 (Fed.Cir.2002). This presumption can be rebutted by showing that the claim element recite[s] a function without reciting sufficient structure for performing that function. Watts, 232 F.3d at 880. Our cases make clear, however, that the presumption flowing from the absence of the term `means' is a strong one that is not readily overcome. Lighting World, Inc. v. Birchwood Lighting, Inc., 382 F.3d 1354, 1358 (Fed.Cir.2004). 65 Here, the compression member limitation does not use the term means, and the presumption against means-plus-function treatment is not overcome. The claims and the specification unmistakably establish that compression member refers to particular structure. The claim language demonstrates that the compression member must fit inside the cylindrical opening and be of sufficient size to exert a force on the screw head, which implies structure. '678 patent, col. 4, ll. 22-24. The specification likewise makes clear that the term compression member refers to a particular cylindrical insert and is not simply a general reference to any structure that will perform a particular function. See id., col. 2, l. 58-col. 3, l. 16, col. 3, l. 44-col. 4, l. 6. The prosecution history, while in evidence, provides no further guidance one way or the other. However, dictionary definitions and experts on both sides confirm that compression member is an expression that was understood by persons of ordinary skill in the art to describe a kind of structure. See Lighting World, 382 F.3d at 1358 (The task of determining whether the limitation in question should be regarded as a means-plus-function limitation . . . is a question on which evidence from experts may be relevant.). 66 Moreover, Mas-Hamilton is not applicable here. In that case, no other claim terms attributed structural significance to the elements at issue, and there was no evidence that the term at issue had an understood structural meaning in the art. Mas-Hamilton, 156 F.3d at 1213-15 ([W]e do not see that the remaining terms in the claim limitation . . . provide any structure necessary to remove this limitation from the ambit of section 112, ¶ 6.); id. at 1215 (The district court determined that there was no evidence that a `movable link member' has a well-understood structural meaning in the art.). That is not the case here. Instead, the overall impression of the claims and specification of the '678 patent is that compression member implied structure to one of ordinary skill in the art. This is shown by the intrinsic record and confirmed by the extrinsic evidence. Accordingly, we reject Medtronic's argument that the district court erred in not construing compression member as a means-plus-function limitation and in not finding non-infringement of all three models on that basis.