Opinion ID: 211308
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: “damping means”

Text: Because we find that the district court erred in its infringement analysis of whether the accused modified design calculator practices the “damping means 05-1173, -1216 13 arranged within at least one said cylindrical bore” limitation of claim 1, see infra Part II.B.2.b., it becomes necessary for us to address the court’s claim construction of the term “damping means.” The district court correctly determined that “damping means” is a means-plus-function claim limitation. The district court erred, however, in identifying the function of the “damping means,” as merely “restrain[ing], in a controlled manner, the force of the helical spring when it is released.” Markman Opinion, slip op. at 15. The language of claim 1, “biasing said lid toward a rearwardly pivoted position, and effectuating a controlled pivotal motion of said lid structure . . . [,]” makes clear that there are two functions of the “damping means”: (1) biasing the lid toward a rearwardly pivoted position and (2) effectuating a controlled pivotal motion of the lid. Having misconstrued the functions of the “damping means,” the district court also erred in determining which structures are identified in the specification as performing those functions. In two places, the specification discusses the structures involved with both biasing and effectuating a controlled pivotal motion of the lid structure. In column 4, the specification states, [a]s shown in . . . FIGS. 8(a) through (c), a damping drum 70 . . . in conjunction with the helical coil spring 62 form the lid mechanism 16 for effectuating the pivoting movement of the lid structure 14 relative to the housing 12. The assembly of the components of the lid mechanism 16 into the blind bore 40 so as to effectively facilitate the controlled damped pivoting of the lid structure comprises inserting the helical coil spring 62 into the blind bore 40 . . . . ’085 patent, col. 4, ll. 48-60 (emphases added). This portion of the specification makes clear that the damping drum 70 and the helical coil spring 62 bias and effectuate the pivoting movement of the lid structure and that these structures are the components of 05-1173, -1216 14 the lid mechanism which facilitate the controlled damped pivoting of the lid structure. In addition, the specification states that [t]he rate of movement or speed in the rearward pivoting of the lid structure 14 upon the release thereof is controlled by means of the damping drum 70 and the damping grease 84 arranged thereabout in contact with the inner surface of the blind bore 40 which, in essence, forms a damping cylinder. Id. at col. 5, ll. 44-49 (emphases added). This portion of the specification makes clear that the damping drum 70 and the damping grease 84 control the rate of movement or speed of the lid structure as it pivots rearward. Thus, reading these two portions of the specification together compels the conclusion that the corresponding structures identified in the specification for performing the functions of biasing the lid toward a rearwardly pivoted position and effectuating a controlled pivotal motion of the lid are the damping drum 70, the helical coil spring 62, and the damping grease 84.3 3 We note that the conclusion that the structure includes the helical coil spring 62 does not violate the doctrine of claim differentiation, even though the district court determined otherwise. Claim 3 explicitly claims “[a] calculator . . . wherein said damping means comprises a helical coil spring . . . and a damping drum . . . .” ’085 patent, col. 7, ll. 33-36. Thus, claim 3 explicitly states that the “damping means” includes a helical coil spring and a damping drum. If including the helical coil spring as part of the structure for the “damping means” limitation in claim 1 violates the doctrine of claim differentiation, then including the damping drum as part of that structure would do so as well because it is also explicitly referenced in claim 3. Regardless, including the spring and drum as part of the “damping means” structure does not violate the doctrine of claim differentiation because claim 3 includes several limitations not present in claim 1 pertaining to the orientation and location of the spring and drum in relation to the blind bore and each other. 05-1173, -1216 15