Opinion ID: 212848
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Integral

Text: The term integral appears in independent claims 1, 6, and 11 but not in independent claim 16. Each district court construed integral to mean formed or cast of one piece. American Piledriving argues that this construction improperly deviates from the plain and ordinary meaning of integral. It contends that to the extent this construction is based on a supposed prosecution disclaimer, nothing in the prosecution history demonstrates the necessary clear and unmistakable disavowal of claim scope. Moreover, American Piledriving asserts that the construction creates an irreconcilable conflict between claims 16 and 19. The Defendants contend that rather than presenting a supposed irreconcilable conflict, claims 16 and 19 provide strong evidence in support of the construction reached by the district courts. Moreover, they contend that American Piledriving limited the term to formed or cast as one-piece during reexamination. This court agrees with the Defendants. We focus our analysis on the evidence relied upon by the parties: the claims and the prosecution history. i. Claims As noted by both district courts, independent claim 16 recites in relevant part an eccentric weight portion connected to said cylindrical gear portion. '964 Patent col.11 ll.13-16 (emphasis added). By contrast, claim 19, which depends directly from claim 16, recites said eccentric weight portion is integral with said cylindrical gear portion. Id. col.11 ll.30-32 (emphasis added). Each court construed the term connected to in claim 16 to mean joined together, united, or linked and neither party disputes this construction on appeal. Relying on the doctrine of claim differentiation, each court reasoned that the term integral must be narrower than connected to and must therefore refer to a single-piece counterweight. American Piledriving disagrees. It contends that because claim 16 encompasses a two-piece counterweight, claim 19 must also encompass a two-piece counterweight. In light of this, American Piledriving argues that integral cannot mean formed or cast of one piece as construed by the district courts because that would require the counterweight described in claim 19 to be both two piece and one piece at the same time. This argument is without merit. Claim 16 encompasses united, one-piece counterweights as well as counterweights consisting of two pieces that are joined together. It does not follow that because claim 16 encompasses two-piece counterweights its dependent claims must also be broad enough to encompass such counterweights. Indeed, where, as here, the claims describe the same relationship using different terms, the assumption is that the term in the dependent claim has a narrower scope. See 35 U.S.C. § 112, ¶ 4 (Subject to the following paragraph, a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed.); Comark Comm'ns, Inc. v. Harris Corp., 156 F.3d 1182, 1187 (Fed.Cir.1998) (There is presumed to be a difference in meaning and scope when different words or phrases are used in separate claims. To the extent that the absence of such difference in meaning and scope would make a claim superfluous, the doctrine of claim differentiation states the presumption that the difference between claims is significant.). American Piledriving has not pointed to anything in the record that suggests this presumption is not applicable here. Given the undisputed construction of connected to, this court agrees with both district courts that claims 16 and 19 inform that integral as used in independent claims 1, 6, and 11 means formed or cast of one piece. See Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1314 ([T]he usage of [the] term in one claim can often illuminate the meaning of the same term in other claims.). ii. Prosecution History The prosecution history removes all doubt that one of ordinary skill in the art would have understood the term integral to mean formed or cast of one piece. During reexamination, American Piledriving attempted to distinguish a prior art reference by arguing this very point: Claim 1, 6, and 11 are further distinguished. . . because such claims further recite that the eccentric weight portion be integral with said cylindrical gear portion. . . . In other words, the claims recite that the counterweight has a cylindrical gear portion and an eccentric weight portion and that these two components are  integrali.e., they are simply components of the one-piece counterweight. Reply to Office Action of May 12, 2006, at 6 (June 6, 2006) (emphasis added). American Piledriving nevertheless argues that it did not clearly and unmistakably disavow the construction of integral it urges on appeal. It points out that it did not amend its claims and made multiple arguments to overcome the asserted prior art reference. American Piledriving contends that the statement was unnecessary to overcome the reference and that the examiner explicitly disagreed with it. [W]e have made clear . . . [that] an applicant's argument that a prior art reference is distinguishable on a particular ground can serve as a disclaimer of claim scope even if the applicant distinguishes the reference on other grounds as well. Andersen Corp. v. Fiber Composites, LLC, 474 F.3d 1361, 1374 (Fed.Cir.2007). Moreover, regardless of whether the examiner agreed with American Piledriving's arguments concerning integral, its statements still inform the proper construction of the term. See Seachange Int'l, Inc. v. C-COR Inc., 413 F.3d 1361, 1374 (Fed.Cir. 2005) (An applicant's argument made during prosecution may lead to a disavowal of claim scope even if the Examiner did not rely on the argument.); Microsoft Corp. v. Multi-Tech Sys., 357 F.3d 1340, 1350 (Fed.Cir.2004) (We have stated on numerous occasions that a patentee's statements during prosecution, whether relied on by the examiner or not, are relevant to claim interpretation.). American Piledriving unambiguously argued that integral meant one-piece during reexamination and cannot attempt to distance itself from the disavowal of broader claim scope.