Opinion ID: 218850
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Modernizing Device

Text: Inventio argues that the district court erred when it concluded that the claimed modernizing device is a means-plus-function limitation. Inventio argues that the claims recite structural detail about the modernizing device and how it is connected to other components of the patented system. In addition, Inventio argues that the written descriptions identify the modernizing device as a structural component, as they provide a block diagram of the modernizing device and also describe the structure and operation of the modernizing device. ThyssenKrupp argues that the claimed modernizing device is defined only in terms of the functions that the device performs, not its structure. ThyssenKrupp also argues that the claims provide no physical structure for the modernizing device, that there is no evidence that the term modernizing device had a well understood meaning in the art, and that there is no evidence that technical dictionaries recognize a modernizing device as denoting structure. Finally, citing MIT and Personalized Media, ThyssenKrupp argues that the term device is a generic term like means and that the modifier modernizing does not add structure. We agree with Inventio. The term modernizing device presumptively connotes sufficiently definite structure to those of skill in the art, Personalized Media, 161 F.3d at 703-04, and that presumption is a strong one that is not readily overcome, Lighting World, 382 F.3d at 1358. In this case, ThyssenKrupp has not overcome the presumption that the claimed modernizing device connotes sufficiently definite structure. In past cases, we have concluded that a claimed circuit, coupled with a description of the circuit's operation in the claims, connoted sufficiently definite structure to skilled artisans to avoid the application of § 112, ¶ 6. MIT, 462 F.3d at 1355-56; Linear Tech. Corp. v. Impala Linear Corp., 379 F.3d 1311, 1320-21 (Fed.Cir.2004); Apex Inc. v. Raritan Comp., Inc., 325 F.3d 1364, 1374 (Fed.Cir.2003). As we explained in Linear, the term circuit itself connotes structure and the contextual language that describes the objective and operation of the claimed circuit conveys the structural arrangement of the circuit's components and provides additional limiting structure. 379 F.3d at 1320-21. Thus, we concluded in Linear that a claimed circuit for monitoring a signal from the output terminal to generate a first feedback signal was not subject to § 112, ¶ 6 because the term connoted structure and the contextual language described the objective of the circuitmonitoring a signal from the output terminalas well as the desired output of the circuitgenerat[ing] a first feedback signal. Id. In this case, the claims indicate that the modernizing device functions as an electrical circuit that receives signals, processes signals, and outputs signals to other components in the patented system. For example, claim 1 of the '861 patent recites that the modernizing device is connected to an elevator control and a computing unit, where the computing unit transmits a destination signal to the modernizing device. '861 patent, col.11 ll.6-21. The modernizing device then converts that destination signal into a call report and transmits the call report to the elevator control. Id. In addition, dependent claims describe the input, output, and signal receiver aspects of the modernizing device, id. col.11 l.22-36, 44-55, and describe the comparison of a target value or indication signal with a plurality of travel time profiles that the modernizing device performs, id. col.11 ll.37-43, col.12 ll.1-8. Similarly, claim 1 of the '465 patent claims a modernizing device that is connected to floor terminals and a computing unit, where the modernizing device reads a destination signal, converts the destination signal into a call report, and controls the elevator control by way of the call report. '465 patent, col.11 ll.6-25. The written descriptions support the conclusion that the claimed modernizing device is not a purely functional limitation. As detailed above, the written descriptions depict the modernizing device and its internal components, namely, the processor, signal generator, converter, memory, and signal receiver elements. '861 patent, Fig. 3. The written descriptions also show how the elements are connected together and to the elevator control and computing unit components of the elevator system. Id. They also describe how the modernizing device, employing these components, receives a destination signal from the computing unit, converts it into a call report, and issues the call report to the elevator control. Id. col.7 l.49-col.8 l.4. In addition, they describe that the modernizing device has an input and signal receiver that detects a signal from the elevator control, such as a target value, and processes the signal with a time travel profile to control the elevator system. Id. col.8 l.54-col.9 l.67. In sum, the claims and written descriptions show that ThyssenKrupp has failed to overcome the presumption that the claimed modernizing device is not a means-plus-function limitation. In light of this disclosure, ThyssenKrupp's reliance on dicta in the Personalized Media and MIT cases is unavailing. In those cases, we stated that the term device was a generic structural term that typically do[es] not connote sufficiently definite structure. MIT, 462 F.3d at 1354. In this case, however, the claims recite a modernizing device, delineate the components that the modernizing device is connected to, describe how the modernizing device interacts with those components, and describe the processing that the modernizing device performs. The written descriptions additionally show that the modernizing device conveys structure to skilled artisans. Thus, this is not a case where a claim nakedly recites a device and the written description fails to place clear structural limitations on the device.