Opinion ID: 4563551
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: “Corresponding Regulations”

Text: In this appeal, Siemens again maintains that “corresponding regulations” means “governing regulations applicable for each location at which a warning device must be activated, such as federal or state rules.” Siemens Br. 26 (emphasis added). This construction, which is repeated throughout Siemens’s briefing, appears to require plural governing regulations for each location in the database. In Siemens’s view, the invention necessarily requires the ability to choose between two or more potentially conflicting regulations if present in the database. Reply Br. 5. Despite this assertion and the phrasing of its proposed construction, Siemens also repeatedly argues that its construction does not require multiple regulations to be stored per location. See, e.g., Siemens Br. 21. The Director responds that there is nothing in the claim language restricting the form or nature of correspondence between regulations and locations. According to the Director, there is no description of conflicts between federal, state, or other regulations or any particular methodology or database structure prescribed in the specification and no basis to import a conflicts-resolution process into the claims. We agree with the Director and with the Board that the broadest reasonable interpretation of “corresponding regulations” is “a database of locations (i.e., plural) at which the warning device must be activated and corresponding regulations (i.e., plural) concerning activation of the warning device, and a regulation (i.e., one or more regulations) corresponding to the next upcoming location.” We begin our analysis with the claim language. The term “corresponding regulations” appears in the claims in connection with a database of locations at which the train Case: 19-1732 Document: 64 Page: 9 Filed: 09/08/2020 SIEMENS MOBILITY, INC. v. IANCU 9 horn will be activated. The database includes both “locations” and “corresponding regulations concerning activation of the warning device.” ’110 patent col. 3 ll. 44–47. Nothing in the language of the claims, however, defines the relationship between the number of locations and number of regulations. At best, the plain language of the claims suggests that the database generally contains multiple locations and multiple regulations. But the claims do not require that multiple regulations be stored for any single location. This interpretation is reinforced by the language of the “determining” step, which requires “determining a point at which to activate the warning device in compliance with a regulation corresponding to the next upcoming location.” Id. col. 3. ll. 53–55 (emphasis added). By using the phrase “a regulation,” the claim indicates that one or more regulations could correspond to any individual location. See Elkay Mfg. Co. v. Ebco Mfg. Co., 192 F.3d 973, 977 (Fed. Cir. 1999). Construing the claim to require multiple regulations per location would be eliminate the option of one regulation encompassed by the use of the article “a.” See N. Am. Vaccine, Inc. v. Am. Cyanamid Co., 7 F.3d 1571, 1576 (Fed. Cir. 1993) (explaining that “a” has a “normal singular meaning” but can mean one or more). The specification also supports this reading. There is only one exemplary embodiment in the patent, Figure 2. Figure 2 provides that a location can be subject to a state rule, but, in the absence of a state rule, the invention sounds the warning device in accordance with a specific federal regulation, 49 C.F.R. § 222.21. Figure 2 offers no description, however, of a conflict between regulations or any indication of how the invention would resolve such a conflict. Even if it were proper to import a new limitation about resolving conflicts between regulations into the claims from the specification, Figure 2 provides no basis to do so. Case: 19-1732 Document: 64 Page: 10 Filed: 09/08/2020 10 SIEMENS MOBILITY, INC. v. IANCU Siemens argues that “[t]here would be no point to [Figure 2’s] steps if the system was only able to store and apply one regulation.” Siemens Br. 34. But Figure 2 clearly contemplates locations for which only one regulation is stored and applied. The process outlined in Figure 2 begins by determining the next grade crossing and determining whether it is subject to a state rule. If it is not, the horn is activated in accordance with a specific federal regulation, 49 C.F.R. § 222.21. Thus, following the process in Figure 2, a location with no state rule only has one “corresponding regulation,” § 222.21. Contrary to Siemens’s assertions, Figure 2 is not at odds with the Board’s construction. Having considered Siemens’s remaining arguments, we are persuaded that the Board’s construction is correct. Siemens makes additional arguments concerning the Board’s reading of Byers, but these arguments hinge on our acceptance of Siemens’s claim construction position, so we need not reach them here.