Opinion ID: 208961
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: mounted

Text: The district court construed mounted to mean securely affixed or fastened to. Literal Infringement Op. at 2. Felix argues that mounted has the broader meaning of simply positioned. Felix offers four arguments in support of this broader construction, each of which we reject. First, Felix argues that the claims consistently use the term mounted or mounting to relate the relative position of one item with another, rather than to denote affixing or fastening. Appellant's Br. at 21. Felix cites various examples from the claim language, including a proximate end pivotally mounted in said compartment interior, a pair of hinges each mounted on said vehicle bed, a catch mounted on said compartment back wall, a latch mounted on said lid lower surface, and a knob mounted on said cable proximate end. Id. at 21 (quoting '625 patent col. 4 ll. 7-9, 11, 16, 18, 23-24). Felix is correct that, [b]ecause claim terms are normally used consistently throughout the patent, the usage of a term in one claim can often illuminate the meaning of the same term in other claims. Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1314. But nothing in the language of any of the claims requires or even suggests that mounted means simply positioned as Felix asserts. To the contrary, the use of mounted in the very claim terms that Felix cites strongly suggests that mounted means securely affixed or fastened to. Specifically, claim 1 recites a catch mounted on a back wall of the storage compartment. '625 patent col. 4 l.16. If the catch were merely positioned on the back wall without being securely affixed or fastened to the wall, it would fall off. Likewise, claim 1 recites a latch mounted on the lid's lower surfacei.e., on the underside of the lid. Id. col. 4 l.18. If the latch were merely positioned on the underside of the lid, it would fall off. It is difficult to imagine howconsistent with the law of gravity any structure could be mounted on the underside of any other structure if mounted merely meant positioned. Additionally, claim 1 recites a prop rod pivotally mounted in the interior of the compartment. Id. col. 4 ll. 7-9. The adverb pivotally modifies mounted to make clear that the rod can pivot on the compartment interior. But if mounted meant simply positioned, then pivotally would be surplusage, because the rod would not be affixed to the compartment interior and could move freely, without needing to pivot relative to the interior. We therefore conclude that the claims use mounted consistently to mean securely affixed or fastened to. Second, Felix argues that the specification does not provide a specific method of mounting one item on or to another, but merely provides one non-limiting examplewelding. Appellant's Br. at 21-22. To the contrary, like the claims, the specification repeatedly uses mounted to describe structures that must be securely affixed or fastened together, else they would fall apart by operation of gravity. See, e.g., '625 patent col. 3 ll. 28-29 (catch... mounted on the compartment back wall); id. col. 3 ll. 30-31 (latch ... mounted on the lid lower surface); id. col. 3 ll. 33-34 (actuator cable ... mounted on the lid lower surface); id. col. 3 ll. 39-40 (prop rod ... with a proximate end ... mounted on the compartment front wall); id. col. 3 ll. 44-45 (retainer ... mounted on the compartment back wall). Moreover, both of the examples of types of mounting discussed in the specification are examples of securely affixing or fastening two structures together. See id. col. 3 ll. 15-16 (A compartment ... is mounted ( e.g., welded ) on the truck bed floor ... (emphasis added).); id. col. 3 ll. 32-35 ([A]n actuator cable [is] mounted on the lid lower surface ... by mounting clips .... (emphasis added)) The specification therefore consistently uses mounted to mean securely affixed or fastened to. Third, Felix relies on a dictionary to argue that mount means simply position. Preliminarily, we note that it is improper to read [a claim] term to encompass a broader definition simply because it may be found in a dictionary, treatise, or other extrinsic source. Nystrom v. TREX Co., 424 F.3d 1136, 1145 (Fed.Cir. 2005). But more importantly, Felix's argument concerning the dictionary definition of mount is at best highly misleading and borders on a misrepresentation to the court. Citing a page from Merriam-Webster's Collegiate Dictionary (10th ed.1997), Felix asserts that [t]he dictionary definition of `mount' includes `to put or have in position' .... Appellant's Br. at 22 (citing J.A. 612). But this is a misquotation. The actual definition in the cited dictionary is: to put or have ( as artillery ) in position. J.A. 612 (emphasis added). A definition concerning artillery is of little relevance to a patent concerning a truck bed. By omitting the as artillery qualification, Felix has distorted the meaning of the cited definition. Without ellipses or some other indication that the as artillery language has been removed, Felix's quotation is highly misleading. Each of Felix's other proposed dictionary definitionsthough quoted accuratelyconcerns a specialized meaning of mount inapplicable in the context of the '625 patent, and is inconsistent with the patent's use of the word mounted. See J.A. 612 (defining mount to include to set on something that elevates  and to seat oneself ( as on a horse ) for riding (emphasis added)). Moreover, the very dictionary that Felix cites also includes the more general definition to attach to a support, id. which is fully consistent with the use of the term mounted in the '625 patent. We therefore reject Felix's dictionary definition argument. Finally, Felix argues that the preposition on in the phrase weathertight gasket mounted on said flange, '625 patent col. 6 l.1 (emphasis added), suggests that mounted is meant to refer only to location of the gasket relative to the flange, rather than the relationship between the gasket and the flange. According to Felix, if the limitation had been intended to indicate a connection between the gasket and the flange, it would have recited mounted to  rather than mounted on.  We reject this argument. The preposition on can be used to indicate attachment. See, e.g., Oxford English Dictionary (2008) (including definition of on as [a]ttached to (a chain, lead, etc.), esp. by way of restraint). Moreover, the specification of the '625 patent consistently uses the phrase mounted onnot mounted toin each instance discussed above, in which the specification describes structures that must be securely affixed or fastened together, else they would fall apart. See '625 patent col. 3 l.28 (mounted on); Id. col. 3 l.31 (same); id. col. 3 l.34 (same); id. col. 3 l.40 (same); id. col. 3 l.44 (same); see also id. col. 3 ll. 15-16 (A compartment... is mounted (e.g., welded) on the truck bed floor .... (emphasis added)); id. col. 3 ll. 32-35 ([A]n actuator cable [is] mounted on the lid lower surface ... by mounting clips .... (emphasis added)). Thus, we are not persuaded that the preposition on transforms mounted into positioned. We therefore conclude that the district court's construction of mounted was correct. As used in claim 6 of the '625 patent, mounted means securely affixed or fastened to.