Opinion ID: 625315
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 8

Heading: said arms and said pair of magnetic members adapted to extend across respective side portions of a primary spectacle frame

Text: The plaintiffs separately challenge the district court's construction of the term adapted to in the above-quoted limitation of amended claim 23 as well as the court's interpretation of the entire limitation. We address the two together. The district court construed the quoted limitation to mean that the arms and the pair of magnetic members are made to extend across the top of the respective side portions of the primary frame. In light of its interpretation of that limitation, the court construed the last clause of amended claim 23 to require that the magnetic members of the auxiliary frame have downwardly facing horizontal surfaces that permit them to be stably supported and secured on top of the upwardly facing nonembedded magnetic member surfaces on a primary spectacle frame. Aspex's first objection to the court's ruling on that limitation is that it construes the phrase adapted to too narrowly; that phrase, according to Aspex, should be interpreted to mean suitable for rather than made to. As the parties have noted, the phrase adapted to is sometimes used in claim drafting to carry the broader meaning proposed by Aspex, and sometimes to carry a narrower meaning closer to that proposed by the defendants. In this case, we conclude that the narrower meaning is correct. In common parlance, the phrase adapted to is frequently used to mean made to, designed to, or configured to, but it can also be used in a broader sense to mean capable of or suitable for. See Webster's Third New International Dictionary 24 (1968) (suited by nature, character, or design to a particular use, purpose, or situation); 1 Oxford English Dictionary 139 (2d ed. 1989) (fitted; fit, suitable. . . modified to fit new situations). The way the phrase is used in amended claim 23 of the '545 patent supports the district court's conclusion that a narrower definition, such as configured to, applies here. See Sta-Rite Indus., LLC v. ITT Corp., 682 F.Supp.2d 738, 753 (E.D.Tex.2010) (construing adapted to, in context, to mean designed or configured to, not having the capacity to); Boston Scientific Corp. v. Cordis Corp., 2006 WL 3782840 (N.D.Cal. Dec. 20, 2006) (construing adapted to, in light of patent as a whole, to mean configured to, not capable of). Amended claim 23 refers to the arms and magnetic members as adapted to extend across respective side portions of a primary frame. In that context, the phrase adapted to is most naturally understood to mean that the arms and magnetic members are designed or configured to accomplish the specified objective, not simply that they can be made to serve that purpose. Other intrinsic evidence from the '545 patent supports that narrower interpretation of the phrase adapted to. The specification refers to the magnetic members of the auxiliary frame as being for engaging with the magnetic members of the primary frame. '545 patent, Abstract; id., col. 2, line 45. That expression suggests that the magnetic members of the auxiliary frame are meant to engage with the magnetic members of the primary frame, not simply that they are capable of doing so. Moreover, claim 22the claim immediately preceding amended claim 23 in the patentrecites first magnetic members that are capable of engaging second magnetic members. The fact that the two adjacent claims use different terms in parallel settings supports the district court's conclusion that the two terms were not meant to have the same meaning and thus that adapted to was intended to have a different meaning from capable of. See Boston Scientific Corp., 2006 WL 3782840, at  (relying on use of phrase capable of in another claim in same patent to construe the phrase adapted to more narrowly); see generally Comark Commc'ns, Inc. v. Harris Corp., 156 F.3d 1182, 1187 (Fed.Cir.1998) (when different words are used in separate claims, they are presumed to have different meanings); Tandon Corp. v. U.S. Int'l Trade Comm'n, 831 F.2d 1017, 1023 (Fed.Cir.1987) (same). Aspex next objects to the district court's conclusion that the claim language extend across respective side portions of a primary spectacle frame means extend across the top of the respective side portions of a primary spectacle frame. We reject Aspex's argument. In construing the requirement that the arms and magnetic members extend across respective side portions of the primary frame, the district court first relied on the specification of the '545 patent. In particular, the court pointed to the statement in the specification that the arms of the auxiliary frame are engaged with and supported on the upper portion of the primary frame so that the auxiliary frame will be stably supported on the primary spectacle frame and so as to prevent the auxiliary spectacle frame from moving downward . . . from being disengaged from the primary spectacle frame. '545 patent, col. 1, line 63, to col. 2, line 2; see also id., col. 2, ll. 49-56. That passage from the specification provides substantial support for the district court's interpretation of the disputed claim language. The district court also relied on this court's statement in its opinion addressing the California Actions, in which this court referred to the invention as one in which an auxiliary frame . . . can be top-mounted onto the primary frame to address the `stable support' issue. Moreover, this court agreed with the district court in that case that the inventor had disclaimed an auxiliary frame that is not stably supported in top-mounting configuration. Revolution Eyewear, 563 F.3d at 1368. In light of the language of the claims, the description of the invention in the specification, and this court's previous decision, we agree with the district court's construction of the limitation that recites said arms and said pair of magnetic members adapted to extend across respective side portions of a primary spectacle frame.