Opinion ID: 533540
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Patent Liability

Text: 10 Because Zip Dee chose not to move for a directed verdict on the issue of infringement, our review of this issue is limited to its legal aspect: claim construction. 11 A & E's argument that Zip Dee's claim construction emasculates part of the specification is simply another way of arguing that the claims must be limited to the embodiment described in the specification, a proposition which we have consistently rejected. Equally unpersuasive is A & E's assertion that Zip Dee's construction of claim 1 renders that claim inconsistent with dependent claim 2. Claim 2 requires that the means for connecting the strip to the awning cover include a pair of elongated members; it does not, as A & E contends, preclude the possibility that the means for connecting the strip might also include the C-shaped retainer. The same applies with respect to claim 3.
12 The special verdict returned by the jury addressed only the ultimate question of obviousness, so we must presume that the jury resolved all underlying factual disputes in favor of Zip Dee. DMI, Inc. v. Deere & CO., 802 F.2d 421, 425, 231 USPQ 276, 279 (Fed.Cir.1986). We therefore presume that the jury found: (1) the U.S. patents to Eichner, Artman, Van Vliet, and Danelfold were not analogous art, (2) the level of ordinary skill in the art was not high, (3) A & E slavishly copied Zip Dee's patented invention, and (4) there was a long felt need for a solution to the leaking problem solved by Zip Dee's patented connector. Because A & E chose not to move for a directed verdict of invalidity at the close of all the evidence, and because there is some evidence in the record to support each of these presumed findings, Herrington, 834 F.2d at 1500, we must take them as true for purposes of this appeal. 13 Addressing the legal question of obviousness in view of these presumed factual findings, we conclude that on this record the invention of claim 1 would not have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art. The sole remaining reference which A & E asserted at trial was Zip Dee's own metal hinge disclosed as PRIOR ART in Figure 1 of the patent and considered by the examiner. We concur with the examiner's judgment that this metal hinge alone would not have rendered obvious Zip Dee's claimed hinge.