Opinion ID: 208069
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Tufts of fibers

Text: With regard to the second disputed claim construction, Lydall argues that the parties and the district court agreed that “tufts of fibers” are clusters of fibers and thus that the court should have given the term this ordinary and customary meaning. Lydall asserts that nothing in the specification or prosecution history provided a special meaning or definition that would override that ordinary meaning. Lydall also contends that the specification shows various methods for needling a batt to produce tufts on the surface, including a single-sided example shown in figure 10 that would still result in tufts being present on both sides of the batt. Accordingly, Lydall argues that the court incorrectly limited the claim to the two-sided needling shown in figure 5. Lydall argues 2009-1135 12 that no textual hook in “tufts of fibers” justifies reading additional limitations to the term from an example in the specification. According to Lydall, it does not matter how the tufts were created as long as the batt is needled to produce them. Finally, Lydall asserts that the court’s claim construction of “tufts of fibers” overlaps with other claim constructions and renders them inconsistent. In response, Federal-Mogul argues that Lydall’s assertion that an embodiment where tufts are formed on both sides of a batt when a batt is needled from only one side is not described or shown anywhere in the patent. Such a construction, according to Federal-Mogul, contradicts the purpose of the tufts to strengthen the batt in the Z- direction. Federal-Mogul contends that there is only one embodiment of the invention, which uses two-sided needling. According to Federal-Mogul, figure 10 shows a single barbed needle at various locations as it proceeds through a batt to produce a tuft. Finally, Federal-Mogul argues that Lydall’s selective appeal and position for the two claim constructions before us conflict with constructions of other claim terms. We agree with Federal-Mogul that, as described in the ’260 patent, “tufts of fibers” are only formed on the opposite side of a batt from a needle’s entry point and, therefore, that the batts must undergo two-sided needling. Lydall is correct that the parties agreed that the ordinary meaning of “tufts” is “clusters.” See Claim Construction Opinion, 566 F. Supp. 2d at 616. However, although the construction of a claimed term is usually controlled by its ordinary meaning, we will adopt an alternative meaning “if the intrinsic evidence shows that the patentee distinguished that term from prior art on the basis of a particular embodiment, expressly disclaimed subject matter, or described a particular embodiment as important to the invention.” CCS Fitness, Inc. v. Brunswick 2009-1135 13 Corp., 288 F.3d 1359, 1366–67 (Fed. Cir. 2002). Here, the specification clearly describes a single embodiment as the invention, viz., an insulating shield that includes a three-layered batt that undergoes two-sided needling to produce tufts on both its upper and lower surfaces. Every time the specification discusses how to create the tufts of fibers, it states that the tufts form on the opposite side of the needle’s entry point. See ’260 patent col.6 ll.55–59, col.9 ll.25–29, col.12 ll.62–64, col.13 ll.7–13, col.13 ll.27–31. The description of figure 10 provides a detailed explanation of how the needling accomplishes this: The needling used in producing the present batt is illustrated in FIG. 10. As a needle 100 having a barb 101 begins to penetrate binding layer 42, the bar[b] 101 picks up and is essentially loaded with binding fibers 45 in that barb. The needle then passes through insulating layer 43 without picking up substantial insulating fibers since the barb is essentially loaded. The needle then passes through the opposite binding layer 41 such that the barb penetrates below the tufted lower surface 48 and presents a tuft 46 beyond that tufted lower surface 48. As the needle 100 is withdrawn back through binding layer 41, that tuft 46 remains at the tufted lower surface 48. Of course, during that needling operation, as is common with barbed needles, binding fibers 45 will also be pulled with the needles to form stitches 34 of those binding fibers, as shown in FIG. 5. Thus, with the retraction of the needle 100, the tufts 46 which terminate the stitches 34 of fibers 45 remain o[n] the surface. By using conventional needling machines, where needling is conducted from both sides of batt 40, tufts will be disposed on both the tufted upper surface 47 and the tufted lower 5 surface 48, as shown in FIG. 5. To achieve the tufted surfaces, at least the lowermost barb of any needle should pass through tufted lower surface 48 or tufted upper surface 47, depending upon the needle direction, sufficiently such that the tufted fibers remain on 10 the respective surface when the needle 100 is withdrawn from the batt 40. Id. col.12 ll.53–col.13 ll.13 (emphases added). The specification identifies a batt with tufts on the upper and lower surfaces as “the present invention.” ’260 patent col.6 ll.50. In addition, the specification consistently 2009-1135 14 describes the batt with tufts on both sides. See id. col.6 ll.59–60, col.9 ll.29–30, col.13 ll.3–6, col.13 ll.30–31. Lydall’s description of the “needling used in producing the present batt” makes clear that the batt must be needled from both sides to produce tufts on both surfaces. Thus, contrary to Lydall’s assertions, figure 10 is entirely consistent with the remainder of the specification discussing two-sided needling. In other words, rather than disclosing a batt subjected to single-sided needling as a possible embodiment, the specification clearly indicates that all batts disclosed in the ’260 patent must undergo two-sided needling. Thus, we affirm the district court’s construction of “tufts of fibers” as “clusters of binding fibers which have been intentionally needlepunched on a downstroke and which extend beyond an opposite surface of the batt.” We have considered Lydall’s remaining arguments and find them unpersuasive. Therefore, for the foregoing reasons, we affirm the claim constructions of the district court. Under the parties’ stipulation, the final judgment of noninfringement is also affirmed. 2009-1135 15