Opinion ID: 211260
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Permit to Float Function

Text: 54 Similarly, the district court erred in analyzing the way in which the structures perform the permit to float function after adopting Applied's description of the function. The claim limitation states: the supporting means being movable relative to the housing to permit the valve portions to float relative to the axis of the cannula. '553 patent, col. 14, ll. 7-10. Under Applied's claim construction as adopted by the district court, the supporting means must be movable, and this movement must permit the valve portions to move freely to and from the axis of the cannula. 55 However, the district court again erred by importing additional functions when it determined the way in which the disclosed embodiment performs the claimed permit to float function. For example, the court found that the 56 ring-levers-teeth structure permits the valve portions to float by mechanically separating the septum valve into two distinct portions: inner valve portions that are held together or reinforced by the teeth so that they do not deform, and outer portions of the valve that have excess material which fold and unfold so that the inner valve portions can move off-axis without substantial resistance. 57 Applied Opinion, slip op. at 15. The district court's holding thus focuses on the separation between the inner portions and outer portions in the ring-levers-teeth embodiment. However, nothing in the district court's adopted claim construction requires the following functionality from the permit to float function: mechanical separation of the valve into two distinct portions, inner valve portions that do not deform, outer portions that have excess material, or movement off-axis without substantial resistance. 6 This imports the functionality of the outer portions of the valve into the way in which the ring-levers-teeth structure permits the inner portions to float. The court did not explain why the outer structure is needed at all for the inner portion to still float, where its adopted claim construction of the permit to float function merely requires that the structure permit the valve portions defining the orifice to move freely. Therefore, the district court improperly imported unclaimed functions when analyzing the way in which the disclosed embodiment performed the claimed function. 58 Again, the district court also found the Sheehan declaration insufficient to raise a genuine issue of material fact that the gimbal and ring-levers-teeth perform the permit to float function in substantially the same way. However, 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 being movable to permit the valve portions to float in substantially the same way to achieve substantially the same result. According to Sheehan, the way in which Applied's ring-levers-teeth structure is movable to permit the valve portions to float is by attaching the seal (via the levers) to a ring that can move freely because it sits in an annular recess that has a diameter greater than that of the ring. (J.A. 754.) Applied's expert went on to describe that the gimbal of the accused device permits the valve portions to float because it is disposed within an annular recess in the seal housing such that it has room to move in response to off-axis movement of an instrument inserted through the orifice. ( Id. ) He concludes that each structure is a mechanical structure that relieves stresses placed on the orifice when forces are applied by manipulation of an instrument. ( Id. ) Therefore, both structures perform the function by attaching the valve portions to a rigid structure, housed within an annular recess, with room to move in response to stresses placed on it. 59 U.S. Surgical's experts' declarations largely relied on the existence of the outer portions of the valve to explain the substantial difference between the disclosed and accused structures. U.S. Surgical therefore argues that Applied's declaration does not raise a material fact because it fails to show how the admitted differences between the two structures could be deemed `insubstantial' when the `way' the ring-levers-teeth performed the `float' function was to deform the outer portions. However, Sheehan explains why one of ordinary skill in the art would not consider the outer portions to relate to how the seal with the housing is maintained and not how the seal with the instrument is maintained. The declaration goes on to explain that one of skill in the art would consider the focus of the invention to be about maintaining a seal against the instrument and not with the housing. Thus, that person would not consider this to be a substantial difference in the two structures for performing the function of supporting the valve orifice to permit it to float relative to the housing. (J.A. 755.) Thus, the existence of the inner and outer portions were irrelevant to the float function as described by Sheehan's declaration. The district court adopted this definition of the float function. Given the district court's broad construction of the required functions, a reasonable jury could find that the two structures are therefore equivalent with respect to the permitting to float function under the currently adopted definition. 60 In summary, Applied's Sheehan declaration expressly disagreed with the definitions of the supporting and floating functions given in U.S. Surgical's McCarthy declaration. Regarding the supporting function, Sheehan stated that it merely required holding the valve portions [i.e., the portions of the valve defining the orifice] within the seal housing. (J.A. 747.) As to the permit to float function, Sheehan stated that [o]ne of ordinary skill in the art would understand the word `float' in the context of the '553 patent to mean that the valve portions move easily, so as to provide for generally undeformed movement of the orifice. (J.A. 745.) The district court adopted these definitions of the functions. Based on these definitions of the claimed functions, the Sheehan declaration raises a genuine issue of material fact as to whether the gimbal is movable relative to the housing to permit the valve portions to [move freely] relative to the axis of the cannula in substantially the same way as the ring-levers-teeth embodiment.