Opinion ID: 717459
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: a rear drive unit including:

Text: 16
17
18 (3) a pair of spaced apart ground engaging rear wheels mounted on said rear axle means in spaced apart relation; 19 (4) a motor mounted on said frame; 20 (5) transmission means drivingly connecting said motor to said rear axle means; and 21 (6) frame connection means removably connecting said drive unit frame to said floor pan of said main frame unit with said floor pan back end adjacent said rear wheels; 22 (c) a seat unit including a seat member, said seat unit being connected to said floor pan of said main frame unit in proximity to said floor pan back end with said seat member in spaced relation to said pan; 23 (d) a battery unit including a battery member, said battery unit being removably positioned on said floor pan of said main frame unit in proximity to said back end thereof; and 24 (e) control means removably interconnecting said battery member with said motor to selectively operate said motor to propel said vehicle. 25 The specific limitations on which the district court relied are emphasized above. In its opinion, the district court held [a]s a matter of law, given the PTO's extremely narrow interpretation of the ['739] patent in light of the Landreth patent, the Invacare and the E & J scooters do not infringe on the ['739] patent. In the district court's view, the Board interpreted claim 1 very narrowly in order to save the validity of the '739 patent. 26 In particular, the district court determined that the Board had to interpret the recited floor pan of claim 1 as only the flat portion of the horizontal underframe where the feet of a person may rest. Moreover, the district court held that this flat portion, the entirety of which must be accessible to the feet of a person, must extend to the rear of the scooter and be adjacent to the rear wheels. The district court believed this narrow construction was required by the Board's decision that the '739 patent was not anticipated by Landreth. In the Landreth electrically powered golf cart, the floor pan (where a person's feet rest) and the underframe are two separate pieces. Its underframe on which the batteries are mounted is adjacent to the rear wheels but its floor pan on which the feet rest is not. From this, the district court viewed claim 1 to be valid as requiring an unobstructed floor pan extending to the rear wheels on which the feet may rest. Because neither of the defendants' products had an unobstructed floor pan that extended to the rear wheels, the district court determined as a matter of law that they could not infringe. 27 The district court also concluded that the structure of the defendants' personal mobility vehicles by which the main frame is connected to the drive unit is substantially different from the frame connecting means recited in claim 1. 28 C. The Board's decision does not support such a narrow construction of claim 1. The Board did not find that the floor pan is only the unobstructed portion of the vehicle which is accessible to the rider's feet and there is no support for the district court's reading of such a limitation into claim 1. The Board found that claim 1 was not anticipated by Landreth because the structure disclosed by Landreth did not teach the location of a floor pan adjacent to the rear wheels as claimed or the location of the drive unit mounted to the floor pan. Thus, the Board did not narrow claim 1 of the '739 patent. 29 The district court's restrictive reading of claim 1 is not supported by the language of claim 1 or by the specification. It is clear when all of the limitations of claim 1 are considered that the floor pan of the '739 patent essentially constitutes the horizontal frame of the claimed scooter. Thus, the floor pan must connect with both the spindle, or steering mechanism, and the driving unit and it must also support the seat. Moreover, the language of claim 1 explicitly places the battery on the floor pan. Contrary to the district court, the floor pan is not just that part of the underlying horizontal frame where the rider puts their feet, but in fact acts as the entire horizontal frame. 30 The specification also supports this view. The specification describes the floor pan as including a floor pan frame composed of a center beam, a front lateral member, and a rear lateral member. It also discloses that the battery pack is positioned on one of the side portions of the floor pan during use. Claim 1 and the specification therefore make clear that the floor pan of the '739 patent is not limited to an unobstructed place where the rider's feet rest. Rather, it is essentially the entire horizontal frame, including the place where the battery is placed. 31 Because the district court based its finding of noninfringement on faulty claim construction, its grant of summary judgment must be reversed. See Key Mfg. Group, Inc. v. Microdot, Inc., 925 F.2d 1444, 1448, 17 USPQ2d 1806, 1809 (Fed.Cir.1991) (Before analyzing a claim to determine whether infringement occurs, the court must properly interpret the claim. Improper claim construction can distort the entire infringement analysis.). 32 D. We are also convinced that the trial judge erred holding on summary judgment that the spring biased pin of the Invacare vehicle and the hitch pin arrangement of the E & J vehicle are not equivalent to the frame connection means disclosed in the '739 patent. In the specification, three collinear bayonet pins are shown as a connecting means. 33 Under 35 U.S.C. § 112, p 6, a means plus function limitation reads on an element of the accused device which is identical to, or the equivalent of, the structure, material, or acts described in the patent specification. Valmont Indus., Inc. v. Reinke Mfg. Co., 983 F.2d 1039, 1042-44, 25 USPQ2d 1451, 1454-56 (Fed.Cir.1993). The question of structural equivalence pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 112, p 6, is a question of fact for the fact finder to resolve assuming a genuine issue of material fact. In re Hayes Microcomputer Prod., Inc. Patent Litig., 982 F.2d 1527, 1541, 25 USPQ2d 1241, 1251 (Fed.Cir.1992). 34 In the summary judgment proceedings, Burke proffered uncontradicted evidence in the form of a sworn declaration asserting the equivalence of the connection means of the accused devices. E & J and Invacare failed to put forth any evidence to the contrary. E & J and Invacare failed to carry their burden of showing that there is no genuine issue of material fact as to the equivalence of the connection means. The district court's summary finding of nonequivalency is inappropriate in light of the contrary evidence on this issue of fact. 35 Accordingly, we reverse the district court's grant of summary judgment of noninfringement and remand the case for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. 1