Opinion ID: 211651
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Construction of the Means-Plus-Function Limitation

Text: 24 The parties agree, as do we, that means for lockably receiving a video game controller in fixed position on said mounting member is a means-plus-function limitation recognized by 35 U.S.C. § 112, ¶ 6. They disagree, however, as to whether the district court correctly construed the limitation or committed clear error in determining that the limitation does not read on the accused devices. 25 JVW argues that, after trial, the district court erred in applying its rephrased claim construction by again improperly importing functions from outside the language of claim 1. Specifically, JVW argues that the court improperly required the claimed structure to unlock and allow the exchange of video game controllers. JVW contends that the function of the means-plus-function limitation is clear from the claim language, pointing out that the limitation's language says nothing about unlocking or exchanging one controller for another. 26 Interact contends that the court should have construed the limitation as requiring that the video game controller be unlockable. Pointing to the second claim construction ruling, it simultaneously argues that the court did not construe the limitation to include the unlocking function. 27 The construction of a means-plus-function limitation includes two steps. First, we determine the claimed function. Omega Eng'g, Inc. v. Raytek Corp., 334 F.3d 1314, 1321 (Fed.Cir.2003). Second, we identify the corresponding structure in the written description that performs that function. Id.
28 As indicated, the district court first construed the function of the means-plus-function limitation as attached by a method whereby one can lock a game controller in place for use and can unlock and release the game controller after use, but then rephrased its construction as received in fixed position by the interlacing of fitting of parts into each other. Because the district court's infringement analysis does not appear to proceed under only one of the two versions of its construction, and, moreover, appears to involve both, we address both, beginning with the second. 29 The district court's second construction confuses function with structure. Determining a claimed function and identifying structure corresponding to that function involve distinct, albeit related, steps that must occur in a particular order. In short, function must be determined before corresponding structure can be identified. See, e.g., Omega, 334 F.3d at 1321 (Once the functions performed by the claimed means are identified, we must then ascertain the corresponding structures in the written description that perform those functions.); BBA Nonwovens Simpsonville, Inc. v. Superior Nonwovens, L.L.C., 303 F.3d 1332, 1343 (Fed.Cir.2002) (stating that construction of a means-plus-function limitation requires the court to first identify the function of the means-plus-function limitation and next identify the corresponding structure in the written description necessary to perform that function); Cardiac Pacemakers, Inc. v. St. Jude Med., Inc., 296 F.3d 1106, 1113 (Fed.Cir.2002) (After identifying the claimed function, the court must then determine what structure, if any, disclosed in the specification corresponds to the claimed function.). By adopting received in fixed position by the interlacing of fitting of parts into each other as the claimed function, the district court effectively combined the two steps, resulting in the inappropriate inclusion of structure, the interlacing of fitting of parts into each other, in the construction of the claimed function. The district court therefore erred in its second construction. 1 30 As for the first construction, the district court seemed to recognize that that construction improperly adds unclaimed limitations to the function of the means-plus-function limitation. See Supplemental Memorandum and Order Re Patent Claim Construction, slip op. at 2-4. We agree. The first construction violated two tenets governing the determination of function in a means-plus-function limitation. First, a court may not construe a means-plus-function limitation by adopting a function different from that explicitly recited in the claim. Micro Chem., Inc. v. Great Plains Chem. Co., 194 F.3d 1250, 1258 (Fed.Cir.1999). Second, a court errs by importing the functions of a working device into the[] specific claims, rather than reading the claims for their meaning independent of any working embodiment. Rodime PLC v. Seagate Tech., Inc., 174 F.3d 1294, 1303 (Fed.Cir.1999). In construing the function to be attached by a method whereby one can lock a game controller in place for use and can unlock and release the game controller after use, the district court adopted unclaimed functions of unlocking and releasing the controller. Those functions are not recited explicitly in the claim but rather relate to a working embodiment disclosed in the '754 patent's written description. 31 The means-plus-function limitation requires a means for lockably receiving a video game controller in fixed position. Use of the terms receiving and fixed position does not indicate the function of unlocking or releasing. Indeed, the district court derived this function from the term lockably, aided by the written description's disclosure of what the district court characterized as readily unlockable resilient prongs that lock the Atari joystick in place. Memorandum and Order Re Patent Claim Construction, slip op. at 10. Even when read in light of the written description, however, in the context of the claim lockably means that the video game controller locks into place when it is received such that the controller is in a fixed position when it is used with a video game. Because there is no indication from the claim language that the structure must allow for the unlocking or releasing of the controller, the district court's first construction cannot stand. See Generation II Orthotics, Inc. v. Med. Tech., Inc., 263 F.3d 1356, 1364-65 (Fed.Cir.2001) (When construing the functional statement in a means-plus-function limitation, we must take great care not to impermissibly limit the function by adopting a function different from that explicitly recited in the claim.). 2 32 While in its first construction the district court impermissibly added unclaimed functional limitations of unlocking and releasing the video game controller, we nevertheless agree with the remainder of that construction, attached by a method whereby one can lock a game controller in place for use. We also agree that the means-plus-function limitation requires that the controller be in a fixed position while in place for use with a video game. We therefore construe the function of means for lockably receiving a video game controller in fixed position on said mounting member as receiving and locking a video game controller into a fixed position on the mounting member for use.
33 The district court identified the structure associated with the means for lockably receiving a video game controller in fixed position as controller holders 21-24. In order to qualify as corresponding, the structure must not only perform the claimed function, but the specification must clearly associate the structure with performance of the function. Cardiac Pacemakers, 296 F.3d at 1113. Because neither party disagrees with the district court's conclusion and we agree that the written description of the '754 patent clearly identifies controller holders 21-24 as corresponding structure linked to the function of receiving and locking a video game controller into a fixed position on the mounting member for use, we accept the district court's identification of controller holders 21-24 as structure corresponding to the claimed function. See '754 patent, col. 2, ll. 39-45 (Controller holders 21-24 . . . each include inwardly extending flanges 21A-24A respectively. Controller holders 21-24 . . . allow a video game controller 40 to be positioned within the controllers and locked into place by flanges 21A-24A.). 34 The '754 patent includes three representations of controller holders 21-24: 35 NOTE: OPINION CONTAINING TABLE OR OTHER DATA THAT IS NOT VIEWABLE