Opinion ID: 208961
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Tangentiality

Text: Felix argues that he has rebutted the presumption of prosecution history estoppel as to the gasket limitation, because the rationale underlying the narrowing amendment bore no more than a tangential relation to the equivalent in question. Festo, 344 F.3d at 1368. [T]he patentee bears the burden of showing that a narrowing amendment did not surrender a particular equivalent .... Id. [A]n amendment made to avoid prior art that contains the equivalent in question is not tangential; it is central to allowance of the claim.... [T]he inquiry into whether a patentee can rebut the Festo presumption under the `tangential' criterion focuses on the patentee's objectively apparent reason for the narrowing amendment[, which must be] discernible from the prosecution history record.... Id. at 1369. Felix argues that the first amendment was made because the applicant thought the prior art lacked a channel, not because of the presence or position of a gasket. Appellant's Br. at 34. Felix relies on the language in his argument to the examiner that the cited references do not show the channel of Claim 7, which is formed at the rim of the bed opening, in combination with the other structure of Claims 1 and 7. J.A. 494. We reject Felix's argument for two reasons. First, the cited language in Felix's argument to the examiner expressly refers not only to the channel of Claim 7 but also to the other structure of the claims. It is therefore not objectively apparent from this argument that the channel was the only reason for cancelling original claim 1 and rewriting dependent claim 7 in independent form, as Felix argues. Second, the cited language does not explain the entire amendment. If Felix had intended only to add a channel and not add a gasket, he could easily have simply amended original claim 1 to add limitation (e) and not limitation (f). Thus, Felix has identified no explanation in the prosecution history for the addition of the gasket limitation, and Felix therefore cannot meet his burden to show that the rationale for adding the gasket limitation was tangential to the presence and position of a gasket. We agree with the district court that prosecution history estoppel bars Felix from relying on the doctrine of equivalents to show that Honda's In-Bed Trunk meets the gasket limitationa weathertight gasket mounted on said flange and engaging said lid in its closed position. We therefore affirm the district court's summary judgment of no infringement under the doctrine of equivalents. [6]