Opinion ID: 625315
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 7

Heading: rearwardly directed free end

Text: The district court construed the term rearwardly directed free end in the limitation of amended claim 23 that recites each of said arms having a rearwardly directed free end to mean a rearwardly directed end portion. Aspex argues that the district court's construction effectively reads the term free out of the limitation. We agree. The specification describes the arms by stating that the auxiliary frame includes two side portions each having an arm 21 extended rearward therefrom. '545 patent, col. 2, ll. 40-41. While the specification does not use the term free in reference to the rearwardly directed end portion of the arm, the figures illustrate that each arm has a free end. Figure 4, which depicts the referenced arms, shows that each of the arms has a first end that is attached to the side portion of the auxiliary frame and a second end that is not attached to any other structure, i.e., it is free. The claim language, taken in context, makes clear that the free end of the arm is distinguished from the end that is attached to the side portion of the frame. Accordingly, we conclude that the term rearwardly directed free end should be construed to mean the end of the arm that extends rearwardly from the frame and is not attached to the side portion of the frame.