Opinion ID: 209728
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: ’054 Patent: “frame” 3

Text: Claim 1 of the ’054 patent recites “a primary spectacle frame for supporting primary lenses therein, said primary spectacle frame including a middle bridge portion” and “an auxiliary spectacle frame for supporting auxiliary lenses therein, said auxiliary spectacle frame including a middle bridge portion . . .” ’054 patent, col.2 ll.65-67, col.3 ll.3-7 (emphases added). The district court concluded that a “frame” in the claims of the ’054 patent “is an eyeglass device that includes, at least, a bridge and rims.” On appeal, Aspex argues that the district court erred in limiting a “frame” to one with rims. In reaching its construction, the district court relied on a linguistic analysis of the claim language, finding that since the frames must support the lenses “therein,” the lenses must be supported “in” the frame and finding that since claim 1 requires that the frame “include[]” a middle bridge portion, it must include other components. We disagree. First, “therein” does not limit the “frame” to one that has rims. As noted in the many dictionaries in the record, “therein” means “in that place.” Altair argues that the frame in claim 1 must support the lenses “in” the frame, but that structures without rims “are capable, at most, of supporting lenses at that place or securing lenses to various components.” Appellee’s Br. at 40 (emphasis in original). But such a hyper-technical analysis of prepositions is unnecessary. For a glasses frame to support the lenses “therein,” the frames must hold the lenses in place. Such a view is supported by other 3 In its infringement analysis, the district court concluded that the accused products did not infringe the ’054 patent because none of the accused sunglasses have rims, and that none of the patents-in-suit infringed under the doctrine of equivalents because rims were not equivalent to glasses that use only pins to hold the lenses in place. On appeal, Aspex argues that the district court erred in construing the claim limitations “not parallel to the frontal plane” and “u-shaped structure having two arms.” The district court did not rely on its construction of these terms in evaluating infringement, and thus we decline to reach them in this appeal. 7 2007-1380, -1407 dictionaries in the record which include as definitions of frames: “the framework for a pair of glasses” and “the constituent of a pair of glasses other than the lenses.” J.A. at 1281, 1292. Further, the use of “including” in claim 1 does not support limiting “frame” to one with rims. “Including” is generally an open-ended term that does not preclude additional elements, but “including” does not require additional, unspecified elements as the district court found. Moreover, the fact that the claim recites a middle bridge portion does not necessarily require the presence of rims. The “portion” recited in claim 1 need be no more than that part of the middle bridge in which a first magnetic member is secured in the primary frame and from which the projection extends in the auxiliary frame. The use of the term “portion” does not itself require that the frame contain structure in addition to the middle bridge. Thus, nothing in the claim language limits a “frame” to only one with rims. Turning to the specification, the disclosure of the ’054 patent is decidedly short and merely repeats the same language on which the district court relied (“therein” and “including”). The written description never mentions or describes rims, although rims are illustrated in the figures. And it makes clear that the precise configuration of the components of the glasses could be modified and still be within the scope of the claims. ’054 patent, col.2 ll.56-62. Additionally, the stated objective of the invention is “to provide auxiliary lenses which may be easily engaged on the primary spectacle frame.” Id. at col.1 ll.28-30. This objective is accomplished by the mode of attachment (magnetic members in the bridge portion of the glasses) and has nothing to do with 8 2007-1380, -1407 whether or not the frames include rims. Thus, the specification does not support the narrow interpretation requiring that a “frame” be limited to one with rims. The district court concluded that the accused products could not infringe either literally or under the doctrine of equivalents because the accused sunglasses are rimless. Because we conclude that the claims of the ’054 patent do not require rims, we reverse the district court’s summary judgment of non-infringement as to the ’054 patent and remand for further proceedings consistent with our revised claim construction.