Opinion ID: 4560748
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: protrusion from the end plate

Text: We also agree with the district court that the accused ED2M/ED3 pile tip does not include “at least one protrusion extending outwardly from the end plate.” ’708 patent at claim 1. As the district court explained, “[b]ecause the end piece of the ED2M/ED3 pile tip is a single, conicallyshaped piece, there is not a demarcation of where an ‘end plate’ should end and a ‘protrusion’ should begin.” J.A. 17. We agree with the district court that the plain meaning of the claim, which requires that the “protrusion” is “extending outwardly” from the “end plate,” does not extend to a structure in which the alleged “end plate” is an indistinguishable part of the alleged “protrusion”; an object cannot protrude from itself. “A claim construction that renders asserted claims facially nonsensical cannot be correct.” Becton, Dickinson & Co. v. Tyco Healthcare Grp., LP, 616 F.3d 1249, 1255 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (quotation and citation omitted). While the “protrusion” and “end plate” structures must be connected in some fashion, the use of these “two terms in a claim requires that they connote different meanings.” Applied Med. Res. Corp. v. U.S. Surgical Corp., 448 F.3d 1324, 1333 n.3 (Fed. Cir. 2006). Under Substructure’s view, there is no meaningful difference between the “protrusion” and “end plate,” since any object could be arbitrarily partitioned into a portion labeled as an “end plate” and a remaining “protrusion.” Nothing in the specification remotely suggests that, contrary to the plain meaning of a “protrusion” and “extending outwardly,” the protrusion could be an indistinguishable part of the end plate from which it protrudes. The only structures in the specification that could be described as protruding from an end plate are distinct from any “end plate” consistent with the plain meaning of the term. See ’708 patent at Fig. 1 (depicting point shaft 17 and cutter teeth 18 extending from the flat surface of end plate 19), Fig. 4 (depicting cutter teeth 48 extending from end plate 49), Fig. 4A, Fig. 5; see also id. at col. 6 ll. 2–6 Case: 20-1132 Document: 35 Page: 14 Filed: 08/27/2020 14 NEVILLE v. FOUNDATION CONSTRUCTORS, INC. (describing Fig. 4A as illustrating “an extended shaft thinner in diameter than the end plate 49 and extending out axially from the end plate 49 in place of a point shaft”). Substructure argues that the specification’s disclosure that the pile tip “could be cast as a single unit” supports its reading of the claimed “protrusion” and “end plate.” Id. at col. 4 ll. 53–59. But regardless of whether the joint between the end plate and the protrusion is a weld or a seamless transition made by casting the two structures together, that does not expand the plain meaning of the claim, which continues to require a “protrusion extending outwardly from the end plate.” Id. at claim 1. Thus, the district court correctly ruled that the “single, conically-shaped” end piece of the accused pile tips does not meet the claimed “protrusion extending outwardly from the end plate.” J.A. 17.