Opinion ID: 783283
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Substantially Horizontal

Text: 58 Anchor also argues that, by not interpreting the only disputed term, substantially horizontal, in claim 61 of the '713 patent, the district court erred as a matter of law. We agree. In order to review the court's finding of noninfringement, we must know what meaning and scope the district court gave to the asserted claims. Graco Inc. v. Binks Mfg. Co., 60 F.3d 785, 791 (Fed.Cir.1995). From the district court's opinion, there is no basis for concluding that the district court performed either of the two steps required for a proper infringement analysis with respect to the substantially horizontal limitation before it granted partial summary judgment of noninfringement. As in Graco, a case on all fours with the situation here, the entire omission of a claim interpretation analysis from the opinion, and the conclusory factual findings on infringement, each provide an independent basis for remand. Id. The district court therefore erred in two respects which preclude a proper grant of partial summary judgment of noninfringement. 59