Opinion ID: 6112100
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: “Initiating a Driving Cycle”

Text: The asserted claims in the ’718 patent require “initiating a driving cycle by pressing said exit end against a workpiece.” The parties did not contest the interpretation of this phrase, and accordingly, the ALJ and Commission applied its plain and ordinary meaning. J.A. 49–58 (Commission), 189–91 (ALJ). But in their infringement arguments, Kyocera and Koki disputed whether this limitation could be met by pressing the claimed “safety contact element” against a work piece. See J.A. 190. To resolve that dispute, the ALJ expounded on the plain and ordinary meaning of the “initiating a driving cycle” limitation. He held that the claimed “safety contact element” is distinct from the claimed “exit end of the mechanism.” J.A. 190–91. Thus, initiating a driving cycle by pressing the safety contact element, rather than the exit end, against a workpiece would not meet the claim language. Id. Kyocera petitioned for review by the Commission, in part arguing that the “safety contact element” is part of the “fastener driving mechanism.” [see Petition at 16–28, In Certain Gas Spring Nailers and Components Thereof; No. 337-TA-1082, DI 1493120] Specifically, it argued the exit end of the “safety contact element” was the “exit end of the [fastener driving] mechanism.” So under Kyocera’s construction, a tool that initiates a driving cycle Case: 20-1046 Document: 87 Page: 20 Filed: 01/21/2022 20 KYOCERA SENCO INDUS. TOOLS INC v. ITC by pressing the exit end of a safety contact element against a workpiece would meet the claim language. The Commission agreed with Kyocera’s construction. J.A. 56. Koki argues the Commission erred. We agree.
Though Koki frames this as a failure-of-proof argument, [see GB16,] we view it as an issue of claim construction. Koki focuses on the meaning of the claims, not the evidence presented below. Thus, we begin with the Commission’s argument that Koki did not preserve its claim construction arguments. Because Koki is “clarifying or defending the original scope of its claim construction,” we see no issue with considering the merits of its arguments on appeal. Interactive Gift Exp., Inc. v. Compuserve Inc., 256 F.3d 1323, 1346 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (declining to apply waiver). Below, the parties agreed to a plain-and-ordinary-meaning construction. And Koki forwarded its understanding of that meaning to the ALJ, Commission, and now to us on appeal. 10 Thus, Koki has not failed to preserve its arguments on appeal.
The “safety contact element” and “exit end of the mechanism” are distinct components. The asserted claims list those elements separately: 10 Notably, this contrasts starkly with Kyocera’s argument that “exit end of the mechanism” refers to the exit end of “the tool.” Kyocera never presented that argument below, so neither the ALJ nor the Commission addressed it. Instead, the parties agreed “the mechanism” refers to the “fastener driver mechanism.” Accordingly, Kyocera failed to preserve its argument on this point. Case: 20-1046 Document: 87 Page: 21 Filed: 01/21/2022 KYOCERA SENCO INDUS. TOOLS INC v. ITC 21 A method for controlling a fastener driving tool, said method comprising:
cludes: . . . (iii) a safety contact element . . . (vi) a prime mover that moves a lifter mem- ber which moves a driver member away from an exit end of the mechanism . . . . ’718 patent claim 1 (emphasis added); see also id. (separately listing “(vii) a fastener driving mechanism . . .”). There is, therefore, a presumption that those components are distinct. Becton, Dickinson & Co. v. Tyco Healthcare Grp., LP, 616 F.3d 1249, 1254 (Fed. Cir. 2010). No party has identified claim language overcoming the presumption that the exit end of the mechanism and the safety contact element are distinct components. Nor is there any language in the written description that overcomes that presumption. Many places in the written description explain how pressing a safety contact element against a workpiece may be used to initiate a driving cycle. See, e.g., ’718 patent at 7:47–51, 11:60–12:15, 13:37–41, 26:10–37, 27:54–59. But the written description is not uniform on this point. At times, it describes pressing the safety contact element against the workpiece until the tool is pressed against the workpiece. See id. at 33:42–47 (“[A decision step] determines whether or not the safety contact element 418 has been pressed against a solid object to an extent that actuates the sensor (e.g., limit switch 432), which means that the tool is now pressed against a surface where the user intends to place a fastener.” (emphasis added)). Only then, once the tool’s fastener driving mechanism is pressed against the workpiece, is a driving cycle initiated. Thus, the written description arguably discloses multiple embodiments. In one embodiment, a driving cycle is initiated by pressing the safety contact element against the workpiece. In another, a driving cycle is initiated by Case: 20-1046 Document: 87 Page: 22 Filed: 01/21/2022 22 KYOCERA SENCO INDUS. TOOLS INC v. ITC pressing the exit end of the mechanism against the workpiece. The patentees were free to claim only the latter embodiment. See TIP Sys., LLC v. Phillips & Brooks/Gladwin, Inc., 529 F.3d 1364, 1373 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (“[T]he mere fact that there is an alternative embodiment disclosed in [a] patent that is not encompassed by [a] claim construction does not outweigh the language of the claim, especially when the court’s construction is supported by the intrinsic evidence.”). Accordingly, we construe the “safety contact element” and “fastener driving mechanism” as separate components. Thus, the “exit end of the mechanism” cannot be the exit end of the safety contact element, and the “initiating a driving cycle” limitation cannot be met by pressing the exit end of a safety contact element against a workpiece.