Opinion ID: 857985
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: “Flitch”

Text: The district court construed the term “flitch” as “a portion of a log resulting from the log being cut along its longitudinal axis and thus having a taper at the butt end of the log.” J.A. 12 (emphasis added). This term appears in every asserted claim. Capital argues that the court’s construction is wrong because nothing in the specifications of the patents-in-suit limits a “flitch” to having a “taper” or a “butt end.” Capital also contends that the fact that some of the asserted claims recite a “tapered flitch” demonstrates that a “flitch” is not necessarily tapered. Capital argues that, because a “flitch” need not be tapered, the term should not be construed to require a “butt end.” Miller argues that the patents-in-suit expressly define a “flitch” as being tapered. It points to the specifications’ explanation that “because the tree trunk is naturally tapered, one end of the flitch is thicker than the other end, and consequently extends a greater distance from the mounting surface of the staylog. As a result, the veneerproducing zone of the flitch is frusto-conical . . . .” ’137 patent col.1 ll.55–59. Miller further argues that the patents use the terms “flitch” and “tapered flitch” interchangeably. Miller points out that the ’619 patent, which Capital admitted is limited to tapered flitches, nonethe- 6 CAPITAL MACHINE COMPANY, INC. v. MILLER VENEERS, INC. less has claims that simply recite “a flitch” (e.g., claims 22–29). Miller also argues that Capital disclaimed untapered flitches during prosecution of the patents-in-suit before the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (PTO). During prosecution of the ’619 patent, for example, Capital sought to overcome an anticipation rejection over U.S. Patent No. 5,101,874 (Weil) by arguing that Weil “does not disclose applicant’s invention” because it “does not show, and is silent with respect to, tapered flitches and their cutting.” J.A. 356. Miller argues that Capital’s statements apply to some claims that simply recited “a flitch” with no mention of a taper. Miller points to similar characterizations of Weil during prosecution of other patents in the same patent family. We agree that Capital disclaimed untapered flitches during prosecution of the patents-in-suit. The PTO rejected claims from the application that issued as the ’619 patent as anticipated by Weil, including some claims that expressly recited “a tapered flitch” and others that recited only “a flitch.” See, e.g., J.A. 348 (claim 1); J.A. 351 (claim 22). In response to these rejections, Capital argued that Weil “does not show, and is silent with respect to, tapered flitches and their cutting.” J.A. 356 (emphasis added). Capital then characterized its invention as removing veneer from a “tapered flitch”: Weil ’874 is completely silent with regard to the problem solved by applicant’s invention, that is, applicant’s novel method and apparatus for re- moving veneer from substantially the entire outer veneer-producing surface of the frusto-conical or tapered flitch, and mounting the flitch by means, such as applicant’s novel dog arrangement, to maximize the wood left in the flitch and the rigidity of the flitch as presented for cutting. Appli- cant’s novel method and apparatus provide CAPITAL MACHINE COMPANY, INC. v. MILLER VENEERS, INC. 7 maximal recovery of veneer from a tapered and frusto-conical flitch with a simple and effective apparatus unlike anything disclosed by Weil ’874. J.A. 357–58 (emphases added). In a subsequent office action response, Capital again emphasized that its invention “is directed to [a] method and apparatus for cutting veneer from a tapered flitch with minimal waste . . . .” J.A. 364 (emphasis in original). Capital reiterated that its invention differed from Weil because “[n]othing in [Weil] discloses or suggests use of a tapered flitch, or a method or apparatus for cutting veneer from the tapered out surface of a tapered flitch, or applicant’s claimed method and apparatus for cutting veneer from the tapered outer surface of a tapered flitch.” J.A. 366. Capital made similar arguments during prosecution of the ’938 patent, stating that “[n]othing in Weil ’874 discloses or suggests use of a tapered flitch.” J.A. 371. Capital’s argument applied to some claims reciting “a flitch,” rather than “a tapered flitch,” demonstrating that Capital was unmistakably disclaiming untapered flitches. Similarly, during prosecution of U.S. Patent No. 5,868,187, an unasserted patent in the same family as the patents-in-suit, Capital again distinguished Weil because it does not disclose using tapered flitches. J.A. 381–83. Through these prosecution statements, Capital sought to overcome anticipation rejections by arguing that its invention, unlike Weil, is directed to tapered flitches. Importantly, Capital made these arguments even with respect to claims that recited only “a flitch,” and thus might not otherwise have been limited to a tapered flitch. This is a clear and unmistakable disclaimer of untapered flitches. Because each patent-in-suit has clear and unmistakable prosecution history disclaimer in either a parent or a 8 CAPITAL MACHINE COMPANY, INC. v. MILLER VENEERS, INC. child, we interpret the term “flitch” consistently across all the patents. 1 See NTP, 418 F.3d at 1293. We have held that the prosecution history regarding a claim term is pertinent when interpreting the same term in both laterissued and earlier-issued patents in the same family. Microsoft Corp. v. Multi-Tech Sys., Inc., 357 F.3d 1340, 1350 (Fed. Cir. 2004). Capital’s disclaimer of scope during prosecution of some of the patents-in-suit therefore applies equally to limit the term “flitch” in the other patents-in-suit. We thus hold that the district court correctly construed the term “flitch” as “having a taper at the butt end of the log” for every patent-in-suit.