Opinion ID: 211308
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Modified Design

Text: In its summary judgment opinion, the district court concluded that the modified design calculators are missing two of the limitations of claim 1. First, the court found that “[t]he modified design does not have flanges with hinge-forming trunnions as required by claim 1(a); instead there are protruding extensions on each end of the covering portion’s cylindrical barrel that insert into recesses in the housing body.” Summary Judgment Order, slip op. at 11. Second, the court found that the calculators 05-1173, -1216 18 do “not have the damping means arranged within one of the cylindrical bores of the lid structure. Rather, the damping means is primarily located within the housing.” Id. First, because the district court’s conclusion with respect to the trunnion limitation may be affected by our clarified claim construction, we vacate the court’s finding of summary judgment of noninfringement with respect to this term. Second, the district court found that the “damping means” in the modified design calculators was not arranged within one of the cylindrical bores of the lid structure. Thus, as the parties have argued, the court was apparently focused on the term “within.” The difficulty we have in reviewing the district court’s finding regarding this term is not necessarily the finding itself, but rather the court’s analysis which led to its finding. This is so because the full term in context is “a lid operating mechanism including damping means arranged within at least one said cylindrical bore . . . .” ’085 patent, col. 7, ll. 19-20 (emphasis added). As previously discussed, the “damping means” limitation is a 35 U.S.C. § 112, ¶ 6 limitation, whose functions are to bias the lid toward a rearwardly pivoted position and effectuate a controlled pivotal motion of the lid. See supra Part II.B.1.b. Additionally, as we have clarified, the corresponding structures are the damping drum 70, the helical coil spring 62, and the damping grease 84. Id. “Literal infringement of a § 112, ¶ 6 limitation requires that the relevant structure in the accused device perform the identical function recited in the claim and be identical or equivalent to the corresponding structure in the specification.” Frank’s Casing, 389 F.3d at 1378 (quoting Odetics, Inc. v. Storage Tech. Corp., 185 F.3d 1259, 1267 (Fed. Cir. 1999)). To determine whether a § 112, ¶ 6 limitation is literally infringed, “the court must compare the accused structure with the disclosed structure, and must find 05-1173, -1216 19 equivalent structure as well as identity of claimed function for the structure.” Id. (emphasis altered) (citation omitted). Although we recognize that the district court was not purporting to find that the modified design calculators lacked the “damping means” itself, the district court did not identify which structure(s) of the modified design calculators, if any, performs the claimed function of the “damping means.” It is therefore impossible, on the record before us, to determine whether that yet identified structure is “arranged within at least one said cylindrical bore” as required by the claim or whether the district court correctly held on summary judgment that no genuine issue of material fact exists as to whether the modified design calculators satisfy this claim limitation. We further note that what appears to be relevant to this inquiry is whether the structure, yet to be identified in the modified design calculators, performs the biasing and effectuating a controlled pivotal motion functions “within at least one said cylindrical bore.” Thus, if the relevant structure in the accused calculators is partially arranged within the bore, the appropriate inquiry seems to be whether that portion arranged within the bore is involved in performing the identified functions (i.e., biasing the lid toward a rearwardly pivoted position and effectuating a controlled pivotal motion of the lid). Accordingly, the court’s finding of summary judgment of noninfringement with respect to the modified design calculators must be vacated. Again, we express no opinion with respect to whether summary judgment may ultimately be appropriate in light of the clarified claim construction rulings and the court’s conclusions with respect to the § 112, ¶ 6 issue discussed above. We leave that determination to the district court in the first instance after considering any subsequent summary judgment briefing or argument by the parties that the court may deem 05-1173, -1216 20 necessary. If genuine issues of material fact remain as to whether the modified design calculators posses each and every limitation of the claims, then the appropriate conclusion is to deny summary judgment and let the facts be decided at trial.