Opinion ID: 2653546
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Means to Maintain a Vacuum

Text: Otto Bock argues that the term “means to maintain a vacuum” in claims 6, 9, and 15 of the ’726 patent is defined in the dependent claims and the written description as “a weight-actuated vacuum pump” and that the claims therefore encompass all weight-actuated vacuum pumps. Otto Bock also asserts that Atmel Corp. v. Info Storage Devices, 198 F.3d 1374 (Fed. Cir. 1999), forecloses the use of a patent application incorporated by reference to add structure to a means-plus-function claim. Appellant Br. 31–32. Össur responds that the only structure described in the written description of the patent is “a weight actuated vacuum pump and shock absorber as disclosed in [the ’274 application].” We agree with Össur. The parties do not dispute that the key structure at issue is the “weight-actuated vacuum pump” as claimed in claims 9 and 15 and as further disclosed in the specification in combination with an incorporation by reference to the ’274 application. Id. at . Although it is true that claims 9 and 15 do not refer to the ’274 application, “[those] claims, of course, do not stand alone.” Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1315. The only reference in the specification to the term states: “To maintain the vacuum in the cavity, either a regulator means 80, a vacuum reservoir 110, or a weight-actuated vacuum pump and shock absorber as disclosed in [the ’274 application], may be employed.” ’726 patent col. 13 ll. 5–8 (emphasis added). And all of the claims must be interpreted in light of the written description, which requires an interpretation that includes the ’274 application. 10 OTTO BOCK HEALTHCARE LP v. OSSUR HF Further, Otto Bock’s reliance on Atmel is misplaced. Atmel only foreclosed the use of the content of a nonpatent publication incorporated by reference to add structure to a means-plus-function claim. Atmel, 198 F.3d at 1382. Atmel did not purport to include U.S. patent applications. In fact, 37 C.F.R. 1.57(d) specifically envisions using a U.S. patent application incorporated by reference to define structure for the purpose of 35 U.S.C. § 112, ¶ 6. The court thus did not err in using the ’274 application’s incorporation by reference to construe the term “means for maintaining a vacuum” to mean a “weight-actuated vacuum pump as disclosed in [the ’274 application].” In view of this claim construction, we further agree with the analysis of the district court that the structures of Össur’s UnityTM module and the weight-actuated vacuum pump as disclosed in the ’274 application are neither identical nor equivalent. The structures are not identical because the vacuum pump disclosed in the ’274 application has a piston/cylinder module that is integrated into the pylon of the prosthetic limb, ’274 application col. 7 ll. 5–17, whereas the UnityTM module attaches to the foot module and has no piston and no preexisting air chamber. Otto Bock, 2013 WL 4828791 at . The two structures are not equivalent because they maintain the vacuum in different ways. The pump disclosed in the ’274 application draws air out of the socket cavity by using the amputee’s body weight to force a piston downward within a cylinder against a chamber of compressed air. Id. col. 14 ll. 55–col. 15 l. 4. The UnityTM module, in contrast, draws air from the socket cavity by using heel pressure to pull apart two blades located on the foot module, thereby deforming an elastic membrane that has zero, or near-zero, air chamber volume in its undeformed state. Otto Bock, 2013 WL 4828791 at . The district court thus did not clearly err in finding that the structure of the UnityTM module was not identical or OTTO BOCK HEALTHCARE LP v. OSSUR HF 11 equivalent to the structure of the weight-actuated vacuum pump disclosed in the ’274 application.