Opinion ID: 781499
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Infringement: Limitation [b]

Text: 63 Literal infringement of a § 112 ¶ 6 claim requires that the relevant structure in the accused device perform the identical function recited in the claim and be identical or equivalent to the corresponding structure in the specification. Odetics, Inc. v. Storage Tech. Corp., 185 F.3d 1259, 1267, 51 USPQ2d 1225, 1229 (Fed.Cir.1999); WMS Gaming, Inc. v. Int'l Game Tech., 184 F.3d 1339, 1347, 1350, 51 USPQ2d 1385, 1390, 1392-93 (Fed.Cir.1999). Lockheed concedes that there can be no literal infringement of limitation [b] because the SSL satellite L-Wheel rotates about a non-zero bias speed. That is, the SSL L-Wheel does not perform the identical function of limitation [b] as properly construed. However, Lockheed contends that a factual dispute exists as to whether the SSL Intelsat VII satellites meet the requirements of limitation [b] under the doctrine of equivalents. An accused structure that does not literally infringe a means-plus-function claim may nevertheless infringe under the doctrine of equivalents. See Kemco Sales, Inc. v. Control Papers Co., 208 F.3d 1352, 1364, 54 USPQ2d 1308, 1315-16 (Fed.Cir. 2000). Specifically, Lockheed asserts that the testimony of its expert, Dr. Alfriend, raises a genuine issue of material fact as to whether the SSL satellites contain an equivalent to the claimed means for rotating the transverse wheel about zero speed. 64 Lockheed relies on the testimony of its expert, Dr. Alfriend, for the proposition that the SSL satellite L-Wheel varies according to a sine-shaped curve that passes through zero and changes direction twice per day. According to Dr. Alfriend, [t]he only difference is that, in the Intelsat VII satellite, when the sinusoidal input is added, the yaw wheel is already spinning at a bias speed, whereas in the '772 exemplary embodiment the wheel is initially stationary. Furthermore, Dr. Alfriend posits that the SSL satellite has the capability to be operated in inclined orbit with a purely sinusoidal roll bias if desired. Even when other inputs are used, Dr. Alfriend states that, the bias signal would be predominantly sinusoidal. 65 It is true that an accused device may infringe under the doctrine of equivalents if each element performs substantially the same function, in substantially the same way, to achieve substantially the same result. Warner-Jenkinson, 520 U.S. at 40, 117 S.Ct. 1040. However, this court must first determine whether the scope of the doctrine of equivalents, as applied to the claim limitations of limitation [b], has been narrowed by the legal doctrine of prosecution history estoppel or proscribed by the all elements rule. Bell Atl., 262 F.3d at 1267, 59 USPQ2d at 1869-70. These determinations are made de novo. Id. 66 Under the all elements rule, there can be no infringement under the doctrine of equivalents if even one limitation of a claim or its equivalent is not present in the accused device. Pennwalt Corp. v. Durand-Wayland, Inc., 833 F.2d 931, 935-36, 4 USPQ2d 1737, 1739-40 (Fed.Cir.1987) ( en banc ). Such a determination must be premised upon a proper claim construction. Insituform, 99 F.3d at 1109, 40 USPQ2d at 1610. Thus, if a court determines that a finding of infringement under the doctrine of equivalents would entirely vitiate a particular claim[ed] element, then the court should rule that there is no infringement under the doctrine of equivalents. Bell Atl., 262 F.3d at 1280, 59 USPQ2d at 1879 (citing Festo, 234 F.3d at 587, 56 USPQ2d at 1887 (quoting Warner-Jenkinson, 520 U.S. at 39 n. 8, 117 S.Ct. 1040)). 67 Lockheed argues that the speed of the SSL L-Wheel varies sinusoidally even though it always spins faster than a set bias speed. However, it is undisputed that the speed of the SSL satellite L-Wheel does not slow to zero, stop, and reverse direction twice during each orbit of its operation. As discussed above, this is required by the proper construction of the phrase varies sinusoidally over the orbit at the orbital frequency. Lockheed, 88 F.Supp.2d at 1099. As recognized by the district court and clarified by the intrinsic evidence of the '772 patent, the sinusoidal variation claimed in limitation [b] is consistent with the capacity of the transverse momentum wheel to accelerate in one direction, slow to zero, and rotate in the opposite direction. See Lockheed, No. C-95-3530-SI, slip. op. at 10. 68 Furthermore, limitation [b] requires the transverse wheel to vary in accordance with a predetermined rate schedule. It is undisputed that the predetermined rate schedule described in limitation [b] of the '772 patent is generated by the sine generator noted in Figure 4 above. It is also undisputed that the rotation of the transverse wheel described in the '772 patent does not vary based on any input from the earth sensor. As discussed above, it is clear from the written description that the rate schedule is predetermined insomuch as the sine generator produces a sine wave with an amplitude that changes on a continuous basis and which is related to the inclination deviation angle. '772 patent, col. 7, l. 28 — col. 8, l. 33. Therefore, the rate schedule described in limitation [b] is predetermined insomuch as it does not include any unfixed real-time inputs, such as those from an earth sensor. The SSL satellite, however, does not utilize a predetermined rate schedule, because the L-Wheel responds to actual real-time error sensed by the earth sensor. 69 Thus, the SSL satellite L-Wheel does not vary sinusoidally because it does not slow to zero, stop, and reverse direction. Additionally, any rate schedule used by the SSL satellite is not predetermined. These limitations are required by the proper construction of limitation [b]. In the absence of an element that performs the properly construed functions, a finding of infringement under the doctrine of equivalents would entirely vitiate the limitations of limitation [b]. Consequently, limitation [b] or its equivalent is simply not present in the accused device. Accordingly, there can be no infringement under the doctrine of equivalents. We agree with the district court that element [b] of claim 1 of the '772 Patent is not present in the Intelsat VII through the doctrine of equivalents. Lockheed, 88 F.Supp.2d at 1101. Moreover, because Lockheed's claim of infringement must fail, we need not discuss the legal doctrine of prosecution history estoppel, nor examine whether the SSL satellites meet the limitations of limitation [f].