Opinion ID: 779640
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 8

Heading: first means and second means for carrying color control signals

Text: 106 The first means and second means are limitations recited in claim 4 of the '890 patent. The district court instructed the jury: 107 The first means for carrying includes functions that are performed by electrical paths which are non-inverting buses for the red and green LEDs shown in Figure 3 and described in Column 3, lines 23-30. First means includes firmware, software and/or hardware that function to carry the information which determines the display area (character) color. The court further instructed: 108 The second means for carrying includes functions that are performed by electrical paths which are inverting buses for the red and green LEDs shown in Figure 3 and described in column 3, lines 31-35. Second means for carrying includes any firmware, software and/or hardware that function to carry complementary control signals. 109 Telegenix repeats its arguments that the specification does not disclose firmware, software, and/or hardware that performs the claimed functions. Telegenix argues that the structure should be limited to inverting and non-inverting electrical buses. 110 TDS argues that Figure 2 shows structure for carrying the color control signals in the form of signal lines connecting the Display Color Control block 21 and the Complement Color Control block 22 with the Variable Color Display block 11. 111 Again, the parties do not dispute that the first means and second means are in means-plus-function form and thus are subject to 35 U.S.C. § 112, paragraph six. 112 The district court misidentified both the recited function and the corresponding structure with respect to first means and second means. Instead of identifying the function recited for the first means, the district court's instruction to the jury indicated that the function was to carry the information which determines the display area (character) color. We disagree. This language appears nowhere in claim 4, and unnecessarily limits the function actually recited in claim 4, carrying selective display color control signals. See Generation II Orthotics, 263 F.3d at 1364-65, 59 USPQ2d at 1926 (When construing the functional statement in a means-plus-function limitation, we must take great care not to impermissibly limit the function by adopting a function different from that explicitly recited in the claim.). Likewise, the district court erred in identifying the recited function of the second means. The recited function is for carrying said complementary color control signals. 113 Concerning the district court's identification of corresponding structure, it is undisputed that such structure includes the non-inverting buses described in the specification. However, the district court ventures beyond the specification to include in its construction any firmware, software and/or hardware that performs the identified function. Committing the same error as with the converter means, the district court relied on expert testimony to broaden its interpretation of the corresponding structure beyond that appearing in the specification. 114 Although TDS argues that Figure 2 identifies structure broader than the inverting and non-inverting buses described in the written description, Figure 2 fails to describe any structure for the first and second means sufficient to comport with section 112, paragraph six. If a patentee fails to disclose an adequate corresponding structure in the specification, the patentee may fail to satisfy the bargain embodied in the statutory quid pro quo of section 112, paragraph six. See Kemco Sales, Inc. v. Control Papers Co., 208 F.3d 1352, 1360, 54 USPQ2d 1308, 1313 (Fed.Cir.2000). Notwithstanding its adequacy, Figure 2 provides no support whatsoever for the district court's identification of the corresponding structure as including any firmware, software and/or hardware. 115 We conclude that the district court's claim construction for first means and second means was flawed to the extent that it misidentified the functions recited in claim 4 of the '890 patent and included in the corresponding structure any firmware, software and/or hardware. See Vitronics, 90 F.3d at 1585, 39 USPQ2d at 1579 (Because the specification clearly and unambiguously defined the disputed term in the claim, reliance on this extrinsic evidence was unnecessary and, hence, legally incorrect.). The recited function of the first means is carrying selective display color control signals, and the corresponding structure includes electrical paths which are non-inverting buses for the red and green LEDs shown in Figure 3 and described in Column 3, lines 23-30. The recited function of the second means is carrying said complementary color control signals, and the corresponding structure includes electrical paths which are inverting buses for the red and green LEDs shown in Figure 3 and described in column 3, lines 31-35. The first means and second means are limited to the identified corresponding structure and equivalents thereof. 116