Court Opinion

ID: 9473774
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-05 04:39:03.223463+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:43:43.350974
License: Public Domain

JACK R. MILLER, Senior Circuit Judge,
dissenting in part.
I do not agree that this court is bound by the law of the case on the basis of the decision of the Sixth Circuit (in Stewart-Warner Corp. v. City of Pontiac, 717 F.2d 269, 219 USPQ 1162 (6th Cir.1983)) that the ’926 patent is not invalid for anticipation. Although some deference must be given the Sixth Circuit, this should not be expanded to law of the case effect where the decision of the Sixth Circuit was clearly erroneous1 and would work manifest injustice. See Central Soya Co. v. Geo. A. Hormel & Co., 723 F.2d 1573, 1580, 220 USPQ 490, 495 (Fed. Cir.1983); Short v. United States, 661 F.2d 150, 154, 228 Ct.Cl. 535 (1981), cert. denied, 455 U.S. 1034, 102 S.Ct. 1738, 72 L.Ed.2d 153 (1982); Northern Helex Co. v. United States, 634 F.2d 557, 561, 225 Ct.Cl. 194 (Ct.Cl.1980).
My principal difficulty with the majority opinion is that it effectively changes the plain language of the preamble, “full display matrix capable of at least eight levels of light intensity” (emphasis supplied), to “system capable of at least eight levels of light.” Reading this changed language into limitation “h” simply insures validity of the ’926 patent, because the Kansas City system is incapable of relaying eight levels *1573to the matrix; whereas, if the preamble is construed in accordance with its plain language, the Kansas City system, which has a matrix with the “eight levels” capability, is prior art that renders the '926 patent invalid. If Stewart-Warner wished its claims to be limited to a “system” capable of displaying eight levels, it would have said so, and it is not for this court to do it, albeit in the garb of a person of ordinary skill.
Accordingly, I would hold the ’926 patent invalid. This moots the infringement issue.

. See the opinion of Circuit Judge Kennedy dissenting on this issue in that case. 717 F.2d at 279. The claim construction of the 2-1 majority opinion is clearly erroneous as will be shown infra.