Opinion ID: 208849
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Summary judgment of validity of claim 22

Text: In a separate order issued on the same day, the court denied Revolution's motion for summary judgment of invalidity of claim 22. Revolution Eyewear, Inc. v. Aspex Eyewear, Inc., No. 02-CV-01087 (C.D.Cal. Apr. 30, 2007) ( SJ Order of Validity ). It concluded that even though the specification of the '545 patent addressed two deficiencies in the prior art, claim 22 need not include a stable support limitation because the claim was directed solely to the decreased strength problem. Id. at 22-23. The court observed that the drawings of the '545 patent appear[ed] to convey to a person of ordinary skill in the art the fact that the substance of claim 22 was in the possession of the inventor at the time he applied for the patent. Id. at 17. Similarly, it found that a person skilled in the art would have identified the subject matter of claim 22 as having been disclosed in the '207 patent. Id. at 25-26. The district court further entertained Revolution's argument under the recapture rule even though no claim amendments or arguments were made during the prosecution of the '207 patent. Id. at 29. The court held that Revolution failed to establish that Contour surrendered claims without a stable support limitation because such a limitation was directed to the auxiliary frame while claim 22 was directed to the primary frame only. Id. at 35-37.