Opinion ID: 770808
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Infringement of Claims 9, 12, 16, and 17

Text: 95 Moore argues that the accused SRC form infringes claims 9, 12, 16, and 17 under the doctrine of equivalents, notwithstanding its inability to literally satisfy the following three elements: 96 (1) first and second longitudinal strips connecting at least said first and second sections . . . together at said longitudinal marginal portions; 97 (2) means defining a transverse adhesive strip on said first face . . . in said third section; and(3) means defining a transverse line of weakness adjacent said transverse strip in said third section, on the opposite side thereof from said second section. 98 Moore contends that the accused SRC form is merely a rearrangement of the claim limitations. According to Moore, the accused SRC form is functionally identical to the patented forms of claims 9, 12, 16, and 17, because it also yields an integral, detachable envelope. 99 Moore argues that the district court erred by rejecting the Supreme Court's 1929 decision in Sanitary Refrigerator Co. v. Winters, 280 U.S. at 30, and instead relying upon our decision in Sage, 126 F.3d at 1420, 44 USPQ2d at 1103, as barring the application of the doctrine of equivalents to SRC's rearrangement of the claim limitations. Emphasizing the Court's references in Sanitary Refrigerator to form and position and reciprocal changes, 280 U.S. at 42, Moore contends that Sanitary Refrigerator expressly condones the application of the doctrine of equivalents to mere rearrangements of claim limitations. To the extent that Sage and Sanitary Refrigerator conflict, Moore argues, Sanitary Refrigerator must prevail. 100 Moore again advances a hypothetical claim under Wilson Sporting Goods to support its theory of equivalence. According to Moore, if two of the missing limitations were redrafted as: 101 (1) first and second longitudinal strips connecting at least said [first]third and second sections . . . together at said longitudinal marginal portions; and 102 (2) means defining a transverse adhesive strip on said first face . . . in said second or third section, 103 (bracketed material deleted and underlined material added), the redrafted claims would literally read on the accused SRC form. Moore argues that such claims would be clearly allowable over the prior art. 104 We reject Moore's overreaching attempt to apply the doctrine of equivalents to the accused SRC form under either a functional approach or by a hypothetical claim analysis under Wilson Sporting Goods. Both approaches would necessarily vitiate the requirement of claims 9, 12, 16, and 17 that the means defining a transverse line of weakness [be] adjacent said transverse strip in said third section, on the opposite side thereof from said second section. The accused SRC form undisputedly has a transverse line of weakness adjacent the transverse strip in its second section on thesame side as the third section. Given the location of this transverse line of weakness in the second section, the line cannot possibly be on the opposite side thereof from said second section. Notably, Moore's hypothetical claim analysis is entirely devoid of any explanation as to how its desired scope of equivalents would accommodate this limitation. 105 Moore's appeal to the Supreme Court's decision in Sanitary Refrigerator also founders. While Sanitary Refrigerator undisputedly refers to reciprocal changes, it nowhere authorizes the rearrangement of claim limitations. Sanitary Refrigerator involved an automatic latching device with two reciprocal changes to the form of a patented structure: one by the insertion of the lug on the keeper head, and the other in the shortened upper arm of the latch. Sanitary Refrigerator, 280 U.S. at 42-43. The Supreme Court explained the operation of accused device: 106 The coaction of this shortened arm with the lug operates, however, on the cam principle, just as the coaction of the longer upper arm with the curved upper surface of the keeper head in the Winters and Crampton structure [i.e., the patented device], to trip or kick the lower arm of the latch lever into the wedged position under the keeper head. 107 . . . 108 [T]he surface of the lug forms in effect the upper side of the keeper head as a substitute for the upper side in the Winters and Crampton structure, which, while left in place, performs no function whatever, just as if it were cut away. 109 Id. at 41. The Court declared, A close copy which seeks to use the substance of the invention, and although showing some change in form and position, uses substantially the same devices, performing precisely the same offices with no change in principle, constitutes an infringement. Id. at 42. Because one alone of these [two reciprocal] changes cannot be substituted in the Winters and Crampton structure without the other, so as to make it operative, the Court concluded that the changes were plainly insufficient to avoid the infringement. Id. at 42-43. 110 As the preceding discussion clearly demonstrates, Sanitary Refrigerator concerned the typical doctrine of equivalents scenario in which the alleged infringer substitutes insubstantially different elements for the claim limitations; the lug substituted for the upper side of the keeper head, and the upper arm was necessarily shortened to accommodate this lug. Given its factual predicate, Sanitary Refrigerator cannot properly be viewed as a case sanctioning the rearrangement of claim limitations. Thus, contrary to Moore's belief, Sanitary Refrigerator does not conflict with our holding inSage that where an issued patent contains clear structural limitations, the public has a right to rely on those limits in conducting its business activities, and the doctrine of equivalents does not apply. Sage, 126 F.3d at 1425, 44 USPQ2d at 1108. 111 We further note that Sanitary Refrigerator lacks any discussion of the All Limitations Rule, the vitality of which the Supreme Court has more recently confirmed. See Warner-Jenkinson, 520 U.S. at 29-30. As previously discussed, allowing the allegedly reciprocal changes in this case to give rise to infringement by equivalents would vitiate the limitations of claims 9, 16, 17, and 19 that the means defining a transverse line of weakness [be] adjacent said transverse strip in said third section, on the opposite side thereof from said second section. Even assuming, as Moore argues, that Sanitary Refrigerator does allow the rearrangement of claim limitations, such rearrangement must not effectively vitiate [an] element in its entirety. Warner-Jenkinson, 520 U.S. at 29. 112 Accordingly, we hold that the district court appropriately granted summary judgment of no infringement by equivalents of claims 9, 12, 16, and 17 of the '464 patent. 4