Opinion ID: 700391
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Legal Determinations

Text: 11 We begin our inquiry by construing the claims to determine what is the invention claimed. [T]he interpretation and construction of patent claims, which define the scope of the patentee's rights under the patent, is a matter of law exclusively for the court. Markman v. Westview Instruments, Inc., 52 F.3d 967, 34 USPQ2d 1321, 1322 (Fed. Cir. 1995)(en banc). Because claim construction is a matter of law, we review the district court's construction de novo on appeal. To determine the intended meaning of a claim, we look to the claim language in the context of the specification and the prosecution history. C.R. Bard Inc. v. Advanced Cardiovascular Sys., 911 F.2d 670, 673, 15 USPQ2d 1540, 1543 (Fed. Cir. 1990). 12 FLI argues that the '931 patent as a whole clearly shows that the invention relates to outdoor lighting fixtures having planar/flat/rigid/translucent sheets as lenses. FLI goes on to state that the '931 patent requires flat glass lenses that can withstand high temperatures. The district court adopted FLI's construction in concluding that claims 6 and 9 define an outdoor quartz lighting fixture with a glass lens. After a thorough review of the claims, the specification, and the prosecution history, we do not construe the claims so narrowly. 13 In interpreting the claims, it appears that the district court relied on the patent drawings and FLI's commercial product instead of focusing on what invention is defined by the claims. This approach led the district court to read extraneous limitations --outdoor quartz light with flat glass lens-- into the claims that they do not contain. Extraneous limitations are not to be read into the claims. DuPont de Nemours & Co. v. Phillips Petroleum Co., 849 F.2d 1430, 1433-34, 7 USPQ2d 1129, 1132 (Fed. Cir.), cert. denied, 488 U.S. 986 (1988). FLI argues that the policy of interpreting a claim to have a reasonably narrow meaning to render the claim valid is a well established rule of claim interpretation. We rejected the notion that claims are to be saved from invalidity by reading extraneous limitations into them in DuPont de Nemours, 849 F.2d at 1433-34, 7 USPQ2d at 1132. 14 We construe the claims to define an enclosed luminaire for indoor or outdoor use, quartz halogen or florescent, with a housing, a glass or plastic refractor lens, and a closure device. There are no limitations in the claims supporting the narrow construction adopted by the district court such that the claims define only the preferred embodiment--an outdoor quartz halogen lighting fixture with a flat glass lens. 15 Having determined what the claimed invention is, we next determine what the prior art is. The parties have stipulated that the references described below are prior art. During prosecution, the examiner rejected the claims in view of U.S. Patent No. 3,720,432 (the Chudler patent), which discloses an indoor fluorescent lighting fixture. Applicant overcame this rejection by pointing out that the invention claimed does not rely on the force of gravity to hold the lens in place, and by amending the claims to recite that the lens is held against the gasket solely by clips, and that the lens opening is generally vertical. 16 At trial, Regent introduced the Thomas references as prior art comprising a lighting fixture and a brochure describing it. This prior art was not before the examiner. As can be seen in the diagram below, the Thomas fixture is a luminaire comprising a housing, reflector lens, and closure device. 17 NOTE: OPINION CONTAINS TABLE OR OTHER DATA THAT IS NOT VIEWABLE