Opinion ID: 211260
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Supporting Function

Text: 47 Under the district court's adopted definition of the supporting function, all that is required is that the supporting means hold the valve portions defining the orifice within the housing. The district court analyzed the way that the ring-levers-teeth structure performs the supporting function as follows: 48 With respect to the supporting function, Applied's ring-levers-teeth structure supports the inner valve portions of a two-portion septum valve by levers that are attached to a ring that moves from side to side. The tooth members of the levers surround the inner valve portions, holding them in the desired circular configuration and isolating them from the outer portions that are intended to deform. 49 Applied Opinion, slip op. at 14 (citations omitted). 50 As explained below, this was erroneous. A court errs when it improperly imports unclaimed functions into a means-plus-function claim limitation. First, this can occur during claim construction by defining a claimed function to require more than is actually claimed. See JVW Enters., 424 F.3d at 1331. Second, the error can occur during infringement analysis if the court improperly determines the way in which the disclosed structure performs the previously-defined function. In this step, the inquiry should be restricted to the way in which the structure performs the properly-defined function and should not be influenced by the manner in which the structure performs other, extraneous functions. 51 Here, the district court committed the second type of error. In its description of the way in which the ring-levers-teeth structure performs the supporting function, under its adopted construction of that function, the district court improperly included the way in which the structure performed extraneous functions. Nothing in the court's adopted construction of the supporting function, requires holding [the valve portions] in the desired circular configuration, or isolating them from outer portions that are intended to deform. 4 Rather, the defined function only requires holding the valve portions defining the orifice within the housing. Therefore, the district court improperly imported unclaimed functions when analyzing the way in which the disclosed embodiment performed the claimed function. 52 The district court further found the Sheehan declaration insufficient to raise a disputed issue of fact, finding it conclusory and lacking particularized testimony and linking argument necessary to establish equivalence. Applied Opinion, slip op. at 16-18. As explained below, we conclude that the declaration was not overly conclusory and that there exists a factual issue under the claim construction adopted for purposes of this motion that the gimbal and ring-levers-teeth perform the supporting function in substantially the same way. 5 53 Under the construction actually adopted by the district court, Sheehan's declaration provides an explanation as to why one of skill in the art would view both structures as supporting the valve portions in substantially the same way to achieve substantially the same result. According to the Sheehan declaration, the way in which Applied's ring-levers-teeth structure supports the valve portions in the seal housing is that the valve portions that define the orifice are supported (via the levers) by the ring sitting in an annular recess in the seal housing. (J.A. 753.) Further, both structures hold the valve by grasping or engaging it at a position circumferentially outward of the orifice. (J.A. 754) Applied's expert went on to describe the way in which the accused device supports as also support[ing] by a structure (the gimbal) that sits in an annular recess in a seal housing. (J.A. 753) He therefore states that each structure supports the valve portions with a movable structure located proximally from the valve that supports the valve within the seal housing. (J.A. 753-54.) While the gimbal does this with annular protrusions that lock together and hold the valve in place, the ring-levers-teeth embodiment grasps the valve via teeth extending from the levers. Sheehan's declaration also includes an opinion that one of skill in the art would consider the differences pointed out by U.S. Surgical to relate to how the seal is formed with the housing and not to how the seal with the instrument is maintained. This difference, Sheehan declares, is unrelated to how one of skill in the art would view the focus of the invention and therefore consider the difference in structures to be insubstantial. These descriptions provide sufficient specificity to raise a material fact that these structures hold up the portions of the valve forming the orifice in substantially the same way, given the description of the supporting function adopted by the district court.