Opinion ID: 211308
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: “trunnions”

Text: In construing the term “trunnions” in claim 1 of the ’085 patent, the district court noted that the parties did not dispute the single word “trunnion,” but rather the context in which the term is used in the claim. The district court, relying on a dictionary definition of trunnions, construed the term to mean “pins or pivots usually mounted on bearings for rotating or tilting something.” Markman Opinion, slip op. at 13. Reading the claim term in the context of the surrounding claim language, “hinge-forming trunnions being formed on inwardly facing surfaces of said flanges[,]” the court found that because the claim requires that the trunnions be formed “on” the inwardly facing surfaces of the flanges, they must project from the inwardly facing surface of the flanges. The court recognized that several portions of the ’085 patent specification, including the “Summary of the Invention” and “Detailed Description of a Preferred Embodiment” sections, refer to the trunnions “as types of projections[,]” thereby reinforcing the conclusion that some type of projection is required. In reaching its construction, the court rejected CCL’s argument that the term “trunnion” as used in the claim could be construed to cover a pure recess or indentation in the surface of the flange because “[w]hile such recess might be a trunnion, it would be one that is formed in, not on, the inwardly facing surface of the flanges.” Id. Therefore, the court concluded that “the trunnions identified in the claim language are ones that project from the inwardly facing surface of the flanges.” Id. On appeal, CCL argues that the district court erred in construing “trunnions” as being limited to “projecting” trunnions. Specifically, CCL contends that the court grafted a limitation from the preferred embodiment onto the trunnion term; that limitation being 05-1173, -1216 9 some type of projection. CCL asserts that the claim language “on inwardly facing surfaces of said flanges,” “simply defines the location of the trunnions ‘on the flange.’” Alternatively, CCL asserts that if the trunnion term were limited to a projection, there is no reason to further limit it to a structure that does not contain a recess, especially when such a construction would exclude the preferred embodiment. Sun Coast, on the other hand, argues that the district court correctly construed the term “trunnion” as requiring some type of projection, and thus excluding a pure recess, based on the context of the term in the claim itself and the disclosures in the specification. First, Sun Coast echoes the district court’s conclusion that the claim language states that the trunnions are formed “on” the surfaces of the flanges and not “in” the surfaces, and therefore the claim language itself does not support CCL’s argument that a trunnion could be a pure recess. Second, Sun Coast asserts that “[a] trunnion cannot be a [pure] recess because the specification describes a recess as part of the projecting trunnion . . . .” (Pls.-Cross Appellants’ Br. 48.) Finally, Sun Coast argues that as correctly construed, the projecting “trunnions” cannot contain a recess and if such a construction excludes the preferred embodiment it is because of poor claim drafting. “[T]he words of a claim ‘are generally given their ordinary and customary meaning.’” Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1312 (quoting Vitronics Corp. v. Conceptronic, Inc., 90 F.3d 1576, 1582 (Fed. Cir. 1996)). That ordinary meaning “is the meaning that the term would have to a person of ordinary skill in the art in question at the time of the invention.” Id. at 1313. “[T]he claims themselves provide substantial guidance as to the meaning of particular claim terms.” Id. at 1314. In particular, “the context in which a 05-1173, -1216 10 term is used in the asserted claim” and the “[o]ther claims of the patent in question” are useful for understanding the ordinary meaning. Id. As we have stated on numerous occasions, the claims “must be read in view of the specification, of which they are a part.” Markman, 52 F.3d at 979. “[T]he specification ‘is always highly relevant to the claim construction analysis. Usually, it is dispositive; it is the single best guide to the meaning of a disputed term.’” Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1315 (quoting Vitronics, 90 F.3d at 1582). We can discern no error in the district court’s Markman construction of the term “trunnions.” First, the claim language itself states “hinge-forming trunnions being formed on inwardly facing surfaces of said flanges[.]” ’085 patent, col. 7, ll. 9-10 (emphasis added). We do not believe that the term “on” was merely a reference to the location of the trunnions, but rather a limitation on the types of trunnions which were being claimed. Thus, we agree that the claim language itself does not support a construction of the term that would consist of a pure recess as such a trunnion would no longer be formed “on” the surface of the flanges, but rather “in” the surface. The claim language, however, supports a construction that the trunnions must be some type of projection, as that projection would aptly be considered “on” the surface of the flanges. Second, the specification consistently refers to trunnions as being some type of projection and the preferred embodiment is described as having “a short inwardly extending trunnion-like projection 28, 30[.]” This is not, however, a limitation which is only associated with the preferred embodiment as argued by CCL. ’085 patent, col. 4, ll. 12-13. The “Summary of Invention” section states that the “trunnions which project inwardly from upper ends of flanges extend from the side walls of the calculator 05-1173, -1216 11 housing, . . . to . . . the opposite open ends of the cylindrical bores and form hinge connections for the lid structure with the calculator housing.” ’085 patent, col. 2, ll. 4550 (emphasis added). Therefore, based on the context of the claim language and the description of the trunnions in the specification, we agree with the district court that the term trunnions be construed as “pins or pivots usually mounted on bearings for rotating or tilting something that project from the inwardly facing surface of the flanges.”1 While we affirm the district court’s Markman construction of “trunnions,” we note that there is no additional limitation which prevents the trunnion from being some type of projection which contains a recess.2 First, the context of the claim language does not exclude a projection containing a recess because such a trunnion would still be “on” the surface of the flanges. Second, such a projection is specifically disclosed as part of the preferred embodiment. Figure 9 of the ’085 patent illustrates that, “[o]ne of the projections 28 is larger in diameter, and projection 28 contains a circular recess 32 including a horizontal rib 34 extending radially from the bottom of the recess 32.” ’085 patent, col. 4, ll. 13-17 (emphasis added). 1 This was essentially the district court’s claim construction embodied in its Markman opinion, although we have compressed the court’s statements into a one sentence construction. See Markman Opinion, slip op. at 13. 2 In the district court’s summary judgment order, it appears that the court may have limited the term “trunnions” to solid projections (i.e., those that do not contain a recess). While the term as construed in the Markman opinion was limited to some type of projection, thereby excluding a pure recess, there is no subsequent limitation on the projection such that it could not itself include a recess. 05-1173, -1216 12 As shown in Figure 9, projection 28 is a trunnion which contains a recess. Thus, a construction of the term “trunnion” that excludes a projection containing a recess would exclude projection 28 as shown in Figure 9. Third, as Sun Coast admits, “the specification describes a recess as part of the projecting trunnion . . . .” (Pls.-Cross Appellants’ Br. 48.) Therefore, there is no apparent reason to limit the term in a way that would exclude the preferred embodiment. Accordingly, based on the claim language and the disclosures in the specification, the term trunnion, although required to contain a projection, is broad enough to include a projection with a recess, an example of which is shown in Figure 9 of the preferred embodiment, and to the extent that the district court may have applied a more limited construction of the term in its summary judgment order, that application was erroneous.