Opinion ID: 4560748
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: end plate having a substantially flat surface

Text: We agree with the district court that, read in light of the specification, the phrase “substantially flat surface disposed perpendicular to the centerline of the tubular pile” does not refer to any interior-facing surface. The claim recites a “substantially conically shaped pile tip,” with a “first end” attached to a “tubular pile” and an “end plate fixedly attached to the second end of the pile tip.” ’236 patent at claim 1. The claim further recites “the end plate having a substantially flat surface disposed perpendicular to the centerline of the tubular pile.” Id. As suggested by the word “end,” the relevant surface of the end plate is the external one at the second end of the pile tip. Case: 20-1132 Document: 35 Page: 10 Filed: 08/27/2020 10 NEVILLE v. FOUNDATION CONSTRUCTORS, INC. The specification reinforces the view that the invention is directed to the exterior surface of the end plate as being “substantially flat,” through which the pile tip applies force to the underlying soil. The specification is silent as to any interior surface of the end plate. Nor does Substructure point to any part of the specification that suggests that the shape of the end plate’s interior surface serves any purpose. Instead, the specification describes the end plate in the context of the exterior surface of the pile tip structure as a whole. Id. at col. 6 ll. 57–59 (“An end plate 49 is provided as a bottom surface to the conical body of the pile tip 40.”). Moreover, the specification explains, by reference to the end plate depicted as having a flat exterior surface in Figs. 7 and 8, that the pile tip converts rotational torque into a downward force applied to the soil by the surface of the end plate in a way that minimizes “disturbance to the soil surrounding the pile,” such that the “surrounding soil [is] packed tighter and therefore provide[s] a more solid support for the pile [], leading to greater ultimate load capacities.” Id. at col. 7 ll. 28–48. Substructure argues that the specification “implicitly teaches” that an end plate having a substantially flat surface perpendicular to the tubular pile could be fully interior to another portion of the pile tip. Appellant’s Opening Br. at 41–42. In particular, Substructure points to the specification’s disclosure that the pile tip, including the end plate, “could be cast as a single unit.” Id. at col. 4 ll. 53–59. To the contrary, that the end plate and the remaining portions of the pile tip could be cast as an integral unit emphasizes that the only relevant surface of the end plate is the exterior-facing one. The claimed surface cannot be an imaginary one, yet Substructure’s infringement theory would permit Substructure to point to an imaginary slice of a solid cast pile tip as the claimed “end plate having a substantially flat surface.” Under Substructure’s logic, that same pile tip would simultaneously infringe claims reciting an end plate with a curved surface, simply because one could Case: 20-1132 Document: 35 Page: 11 Filed: 08/27/2020 NEVILLE v. FOUNDATION CONSTRUCTORS, INC. 11 imagine an interior curved surface within the solid material of the pile tip. The prosecution history likewise confirms that the substantially flat surface of the end plate does not refer to some arbitrary interior surface. The end plate limitation was added during prosecution of the ’236 patent to overcome rejections based on U.S. Patent Publication No. 2004/0076479 (Camilleri) and Japanese Patent No. 5- 106223 (JP ’223). J.A. 432–34. The patent examiner had determined that both Camilleri and JP ’223 disclosed “a substantially conically shaped pile tip.” J.A. 422. As the applicant explained, the amendment was in response to the examiner’s “suggest[ion] that a limitation including an end plate extending perpendicularly to the longitudinal axis of the pile would potentially [overcome] the prior art of record.” J.A. at 432. The applicant’s explanation of the mutual understanding reached with the patent examiner reinforces that the introduction of the end plate, with its substantially flat surface, was intended to distinguish the “substantially conically shaped pile tip(s)” of the prior art. Substructure argues that the JP ’223 and Camilleri pile tips have hollow interiors, drawing a distinction between pile tips having hollow interiors and solid interiors. Effectively, Substructure takes the position that the claimed end plate with a substantially flat surface is present in all cone-shaped pile tips that are solid, but not coneshaped pile tips that are hollow. But Substructure fails to identify anything in the claims, specification, or prosecution history suggesting that the end plate limitation delineates between solid and hollow pile tips; nor do we see any. Moreover, Substructure’s alleged distinction rings hollow in light of the applicant’s later assertion during prosecution that U.S. Patent No. 108,814 (“Moseley”), which discloses a “pile with solid conical point,” J.A. 932 (emphasis added), Case: 20-1132 Document: 35 Page: 12 Filed: 08/27/2020 12 NEVILLE v. FOUNDATION CONSTRUCTORS, INC. “does not appear [to] teach[] an end plate disposed at an end of a pile tip having a conical portion.” J.A. 511–12. 3 For the above reasons, we agree with the district court that the claimed “substantially flat surface” of the end plate does not refer to “an interior surface facing into the rest of the pile tip.” J.A. 15. To the extent that Substructure contends there is a substantially flat surface that is interior, but facing outward away from the tubular pile, the district court correctly noted that Substructure cannot manufacture a factual dispute by drawing imaginary lines through the accused pile tip to create an “end plate” and “substantially flat surface” where none exist. Id. at 16 (explaining that Substructure’s expert, Dr. Decker, “has not shown that there is indeed a substantially flat surface of an end plate somewhere interior to the ‘fish-tail protrusion,’ beyond his own annotations of pictures showing only the exterior of the pile tips”). Although Substructure urges that, even under the district court’s construction, the “circumferential walls” of the accused pile tip are an “exterior” surface, Substructure does not contend that the circular circumference of the pile tip is a “substantially flat surface.” Appellant’s Opening Br. at 42–43. Thus, the district court correctly determined that the accused ED2M/ED3 pile tip does not include the claimed “end plate having a substantially flat surface.” 3 Substructure also argues that Foundation waived its prosecution history arguments by failing to raise them before the district court. But the district court’s claim construction relied in part on “how Plaintiff used the phrase ‘substantially flat surface’ to distinguish the pending claims in the application leading to the [’236] Patent from certain prior art references.” J.A. 16. We decline Substructure’s invitation to disregard the basis for the district court’s ruling. Case: 20-1132 Document: 35 Page: 13 Filed: 08/27/2020 NEVILLE v. FOUNDATION CONSTRUCTORS, INC. 13