Opinion ID: 3179244
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: A connector for coupling an end of a coaxial ca-

Text: ble, . . . the connector comprising: ... a continuity member disposed only rear- ward of the forward facing lip surface of the internal lip of the coupler, the continu- ity member having a continuity base por- tion extending between the continuity post engaging surface of the post and the con- tinuity body engaging surface of the con- nector body, and a continuity contact surface configured to be biased against the rearward facing lip surface of the internal lip of the coupler so as to maintain electri- cal continuity between the coupler and the post when the coupler is in the partially tightened position on the interface port, even when the coupler is in the fully tight- ened position on the interface port, and PPC BROADBAND, INC. v. CORNING OPTICAL COMMC’NS 13 even when the post moves relative to the coupler. Similarly, independent claims 7 and 20 of the ’353 patent recite methods of assembling a coaxial cable connector, the method comprising “positioning an electrical continuity member so as to . . . maintain electrical continuity between the post and the nut when the post pivots relative to the nut.” And dependent claims 8, 16, and 31 of the ’320 patent require the continuity member to “maintain electrical continuity when the nut is in both the partially tightened position on the interface port and in the fully tightened position on the interface port.” These limitations require the continuity member “maintain electrical continuity” during certain specified periods of operation of the connector. For example, claims 7 and 20 of the ’353 patent require the connector to maintain electrical continuity “when the post pivots relative to the nut.” See also ’320 patent, claims 8, 16, and 31 (requiring the continuity member to maintain electrical continuity “when the nut is in both the partially tightened position on the interface port and in the fully tightened position on the interface port”); ’060 patent, claim 1 (requiring the continuity member to maintain electrical continuity “when the coupler is in the partially tightened position on the interface port, even when the coupler is in the fully tightened position on the interface port, and even when the post moves relative to the coupler.”). These claims require the continuity member maintain electrical continuity when the coupler is in a certain position or during certain modes of operation. Maintaining electrical continuity requires consistent or continuous contact— under both the broadest reasonable interpretation standard required by Cuozzo and the framework laid out in Phillips. Nowhere in its decisions did the Board find that the combination of Matthews and Tatsuzuki maintains elec- 14 PPC BROADBAND, INC. v. CORNING OPTICAL COMMC’NS trical continuity during the specific positions or modes of operation required by these limitations. Corning argues that the Board did not ignore these limitations, but considered it as part of its claim construction analysis for the terms “continuity member” and “electrical continuity member.” See Appellee’s Br. 36–37. But the portions of the Board decisions cited by Corning suggest the opposite. As the Board explained: [W]e decline to import limitations into the disputed claim limitation that would require the “continuity member” to make “consistent contact” with the coupler/nut and the post such that it main- tains a “continuous electrical connection” between these components. J.A. 10; J.A. 101–02; J.A. 155; J.A. 206–07. The Board explicitly declined to require the continuity member to “maintain[] a ‘continuous electrical connection.’” Id. But when the coupler is in a certain position or during certain modes of operation, that is exactly what these claims expressly require—not because they use the term “continuity member,” but because they use the phrase “maintain electrical continuity.” Corning argues that we should nonetheless affirm the Board’s decision because the combination of Matthews and Tatsuzuki teaches these limitations. The Board did not make any such fact findings, and we will not make fact findings for the first time on appeal. We therefore vacate the Board’s determination that claims 8, 16, and 31 of the ’320 patent, claims 1–9 of the ’060 patent, and claims 7–27 of the ’353 patent are unpatentable. III. The “Shaped to Fit” / “Configured to Fit” Limitations Claims 1–9 of the ’060 patent, claims 16 and 24 of the ’353 patent, and claim 28 of the ’320 patent recite a post and a body that are “shaped to fit” or “configured to fit” PPC BROADBAND, INC. v. CORNING OPTICAL COMMC’NS 15 one another. The Board held that components that are shaped or configured to fit one another “are sized and dimensioned to abut one another,” including components with surfaces that do not face one another. Figure 17 of the ’060 patent: Certain claims require the body 50 to be “shaped to fit” or “configured to fit” the post 40. PPC Broadband does not dispute that the plain meaning of “fit” is that “an object is the proper size and shape.” Appellant’s Br. 31. Instead, PPC Broadband argues that this plain meaning requires the two surfaces that are shaped or configured to fit one another to be somewhat parallel—that one surface “has a complementary size and shape as, and faces” the other surface. Appellant’s Br. 31 (emphasis added). It argues that components whose surfaces do not face one another cannot be “shaped to fit” or “configured to fit” one another. It argues that we should vacate and remand the Board’s determination as to these claims because the Board did not find that the combination of Matthews and Tatsuzuki teaches this limitation. 16 PPC BROADBAND, INC. v. CORNING OPTICAL COMMC’NS We hold that the Board correctly construed these terms. Under their broadest reasonable interpretation, these terms have their ordinary meaning, which merely requires one surface to have a complementary size and shape as the other surface. PPC Broadband puts forth no dictionary definition supporting its argument that the surfaces must be somewhat parallel. Nor does PPC Broadband point to any disavowal or disclaimer in the specifications of the ’320 patent family compelling departure from this ordinary meaning. PPC Broadband argues that the specifications refer to surfaces that are configured to fit one another as “opposing complimentary surfaces,” which excludes perpendicular surfaces. ’320 patent col. 19 ll. 45–52, fig. 50. But there is no disclaimer or disavowal here; indeed, the specifications’ descriptions of “opposing complimentary surfaces” do not include the terms “configured to fit” or “shaped to fit.” Id. Second, PPC Broadband notes that the specifications teach that the continuity member extends between two fitting surfaces such that the body, the continuity member, and the post are secured “both axially and rotationally,” and argues that surfaces that are perpendicular cannot be secured as the specifications describe. ’320 patent col. 13 ll. 15–20. But perpendicular surfaces can be fitted together in a manner that prevents movement of the surfaces relative to each other, thereby ensuring the surfaces are axially and rotationally secured. Finally, PPC Broadband argues that the Board’s construction is inoperable. For example, it notes that claim 1 of the ’060 patent requires that the “body is positioned around a portion of the post,” with the continuity member “extend[ing] between” the post and the body. It argues that if the surfaces of the post and body are perpendicular, the continuity member cannot extend between them. We disagree, and see no reason a continuity member could not extend between two perpendicular surfaces. PPC BROADBAND, INC. v. CORNING OPTICAL COMMC’NS 17 We therefore uphold the Board’s construction of “shaped to fit” and “configured to fit.” Because PPC Broadband’s argument that the combination of Matthews and Tatsuzuki does not disclose this limitation is entirely predicated on our adoption of its claim construction, we affirm the Board’s decision that claim 28 of the ’320 patent is unpatentable. And although we vacate the Board’s determination that claims 1–9 of the ’060 patent and claims 16 and 24 of the ’353 patent are unpatentable because of the “maintain electrical continuity” limitation, the Board correctly found that the prior art teaches the “shaped to fit” and “configured to fit” limitation in these claims.