Opinion ID: 785735
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: The Area of Operation

Text: 69 Under its first theory, Summit argues that Nidek infringed the means for focusing limitation because at small aperture sizes, it is possible for each individual laser pulse to be larger than the light spot produced on the cornea. JMOL Order, 2002 WL 31844693, at . Thus, whenever this occurs, the light spot produced by the pulse is as large as the area that is being ablated at that particular moment of the procedure. Id. This infringement theory is necessarily premised on the assumption that the area of the cornea one wishes to operate upon in the district court's claim construction is dynamic, and encompasses the specific area of the cornea that is ablated at any given time during a procedure. Id. In support of this theory, Summit presented direct testimony by Dr. Feld that the area of operation progressively changes throughout the course of the procedure. Trial Tr. day 3, p. 74, l. 21 — p. 75, l. 8. In addition, Summit argues that admissions by Nidek's experts Dr. Oesterlin and Dr. Rapoza are consistent with Dr. Feld's testimony and provide further evidence of Nidek's infringement. 70 The district court's claim construction highlighted the portion of the claim that recited the function of the means for focusing limitation. Both the claim construction and the claim language were submitted to the jury. Trial Tr. day 11, p. 112, l. 16 — p. 113, l. 3. According to the claim construction and the claim language, the function of the means for focusing is to focus a beam of light so as to direct a spot of light onto the front surface of the cornea. The claim construction recites that the area of the spot of light is at least as large as the area of the cornea one wishes to operate upon. The claim language itself states that the area of said light spot ha[s] a maximum area at least as large as the area of the cornea desired to be operated upon. Azema '330 patent, col. 11, ll. 31-33 (emphasis added). While the district court's claim construction was not explicit, the claim language itself is clear that the area of the cornea desired to be operated upon is the frame of reference for determining the maximum area of the light spot. This has nothing to do with the extent of ablation produced by an impinging light spot at any one time during a surgical procedure. Thus, the testimony directed to the variation in character of the light spot as somehow related to the area of the cornea desired to be operated upon is misplaced. 71 The proper infringement inquiry is simply whether the accused device contains a beam of light that is focused by a lens into a spot of light on the cornea, the spot of light having a maximum area at least as large as the area of the cornea to be reshaped by the surgical procedure. The claim language the area of the cornea desired to be operated upon is the entire area of the cornea to be treated during the course of the laser eye surgical operation, not the area undergoing ablation at any one time, as Summit argues. 72 Summit's argument is premised on the area of the cornea desired to be operated upon being dynamic. That premise is misplaced. It is irrelevant whether the light beam is larger than the light spot produced on the cornea at certain points of the procedure. Thus, Dr. Feld's testimony that the area of operation is dynamic is not sufficient evidence to support the jury's verdict that Nidek infringed the Azema '330 patent, nor are the alleged admissions by Nidek's experts Dr. Oesterlin and Dr. Sayano to that effect.