Opinion ID: 2653546
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Seal Means

Text: Otto Bock argues that the term “seal means” in claims 6, 9, 15, and 18 of the ’726 patent is defined broadly in the dependent claims and the written description as “an annular seal between the liner and the socket.” Össur responds that the patent expressly links “a narrow ring with a rectangular cross section” to the function of “sealing the socket activity,” a more narrow interpretation. We agree with Össur that the ’726 patent expressly links two structures, namely, the polyurethane sleeve and an annular seal, to the function of “sealing the socket cavity.” ’726 patent col. 6 ll. 49–54; col. 12 ll. 55–58; col. 13 ll. 24–41. No other structures are described in the written description for performing the sealing function. Our focus, therefore, is on the construction of “annular seal.” The ’726 patent depicts an “annular seal” as a narrow ring with a rectangular cross-section around the liner in figures 17, 18, and 20. “The annular seal . . . is adapted to sealingly engage the suspension sleeve 86, producing a seal against the vacuum in cavity 62 at the point of contact with the suspension sleeve 86.” Id. col. 13 ll. 27–31. In another embodiment, “the annular seal 140 does not make contact with the suspension sleeve 86, but rather makes contact with the inner wall 63 of the socket 60, and makes a seal at that point.” Id. col. 13 ll. 35–38. These two passages, in combination with figures 17, 18, and 20, make clear that the “annular seal” is properly construed as a narrow ring with a rectangular cross-section. 8 OTTO BOCK HEALTHCARE LP v. OSSUR HF Although dependent claims 6 and 18 recite “wherein the seal means further comprises an annular seal between the liner and the socket,” those claims do not stand alone. Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1315. The claims must be interpreted in light of the written description, which requires a more narrow interpretation of the term “annular seal.” The district court thus did not err in construing the term “means for sealing” to mean a narrow ring around the liner that has a rectangular cross-section. Össur’s Seal-In® V liner does perform the function of sealing the socket cavity; however, the disclosed annular seal in the ’726 patent and the Seal-In® V liner are not structurally identical to the “seal means” as disclosed. The Seal-In® V liner’s membrane seal is not structurally identical to the annular seal disclosed in the ’726 patent because, unlike in the patent, the membrane seal (1) has a wide band of contact with the socket; (2) has two narrow seal rings on the exterior surface; (3) has pliable blades on the interior surface; (4) has chamfered edges; and (5) is bonded to a recess in the liner. The Seal-In® V liner’s membrane is also not structurally equivalent to the annular seal disclosed in the ’726 patent. First, the membrane seal’s “dual-sealing mechanism” performs the sealing function in a substantially different manner from the smooth-surface annular seal disclosed in the patent. Össur’s membrane seal does not completely press against the socket’s interior wall; rather, the two outer seal rings press against the interior wall of the socket. Otto Bock, 2013 WL 4828791 at . According to Otto Bock’s expert, Dr. Gard, other portions of the membrane seal’s wide surface, however, “may not press against the socket, and further may not touch the socket wall at all.” Id. Second, the interior blades cause the Seal-In® V liner’s membrane seal to perform the sealing function differently. Dr. Gard found that “when a force is exerted to pull the liner out of a socket, the blades expand outwardly, which in turn creates extra pressure of the OTTO BOCK HEALTHCARE LP v. OSSUR HF 9 seal wall against the socket wall, thereby making it more difficult to lose suspension of the liner.” Id. The district court thus did not clearly err in finding that the Seal-In® V liner’s membrane seal does not perform the sealing function in substantially the same way as the annular seal disclosed in the ’726 patent.