Court Opinion

ID: 9468359
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-05 02:12:50.550998+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:40:50.029965
License: Public Domain

*1118JOINER, District Judge,
dissenting.
I dissent.
On the assumption that the prevailing law of res judicata and privity in this circuit prevents the defendant from challenging the validity of the patent at issue, I would nonetheless hold that the record does not support the finding of infringement and would reverse on this ground.
As a preliminary matter, I disagree with the majority opinion’s crucial characterization of the teachings of the patent with regard to support means for the Titzel relining tower. Claim I of the patent teaches only one means of support, “base means on the lower portion adapted to engage the vessel bottom at spaced apart adjustable level points whereby the tower may be levelled. and supported ...” The second means of support relied on by the majority does not exist. The portion of the patent claim relied on refers to the supports for the working platform: “[A] plurality of support arms spaced about said carrier means and pivoted thereon from a position parallel to the lower portion of the tower to a position transverse to the tower means to form a working platform...” This aspect of the tower does not provide support for the tower itself, but is the means by which the work platform is supported.
Secondly, the majority states that plaintiff’s exhibit 99 reveals that the tower is actually supported by a trunnion ring across its waist, which allows rotation around a pivot point. The record reflects, however, that the trunnion ring supports not the tower, but the vessel within which the tower is used.
The patent in this case describes a tower that is “normally free standing.” The term “free standing” must be given content by the claims of the patent itself as well as its file history. As noted above, Claim I of the patent refers to only one means of support — the base means identified by the numeral 16 on the diagram appended to this opinion. Claim 2 describes a temporary support feature to be used for setting the tower, the feature identified by numerals 36 through 39 on the diagram appended to this opinion. It is clear, however, that base means support is the key support feature of the patent, as is evident from the following history of the successive applications for the patent.
The initial application described a tower which had jack means at the bottom of the tower for supporting and positioning the tower. Additionally, the claims described outrigger members on the tower designed to bear on supporting members spaced from and about the tower. The outrigger members are now identified by numerals 36-39 in the current diagram of the patent. The patent office rejected the claim regarding base support means in view of the Laaback patent which taught a tower resting on one base support point. The application was then amended to stress that the base means were the primary support of the tower. However, references to the outriggers were retained. This application was also rejected, but not because of the claims relating to base support means. Rather, the outrigger feature was rejected in view of the Laaback patent which taught top support by way of a platform in conjunction with the base means identified above. Finally, the application was resubmitted, this time by a complete rewording of all the claims. The outrigger feature was relegated to providing temporary support for setting the tower. The only support means identified in Claim I was the base support means.
The remarks of the applicant’s lawyer submitted in support of the second amended application give substance to the meaning of the term “free standing.”
[The claims] have been rewritten to bring out the fact that the tower is normally freestanding and supported solely from the base of the tower . . .
The Laaback patent shows a vertical lift scaffold which is primarily supported *1119at the top by the members 28 and 32 [the platform] acting in conjunction with a leveling device 46 [at the base]. Again there is no suggestion in Laaback of a tower structure such as that called for in the claims and in which all of the support comes from the vessel within which the tower is operating. [Emphasis supplied.]
It was based on these remarks that the patent examiner approved the final claims and issued the patent.
At trial, plaintiff’s expert, Dr. James P. Romualdi, testified that the Titzel tower had three support means. He first identified the base support means. He then identified the support contributed by the platform identified by the numeral 30 when it is connected to the service floor, 31. Finally, he identified the outrigger supports, but stated that these supports are not essential when the base means and platform operate together. He stated that if the tower were supported only by the base means it would not be stable and thus not free standing. However, when identifying the portions of the patent teaching support means, he pointed to no reference regarding the support derived from the platform when attached to the service floor. He could not have stated that the patent taught such support for it simply does not teach support by any means other than the base means and the temporary setting support derived from the outriggers. In fact the patent drawings show that the platform is not attached to the tower. Figure 1 of the diagrams appended to this opinion.
The record before this court indicates that the Titzel tower functions in a manner not described by the patent, and in a manner rejected by the patent office. However, the question before this court is not whether defendant’s towers infringe plaintiff’s towers as used, but whether they infringe plaintiff’s patent. This they do not.
The district court found that the M&G and Fordees reline towers were primarily supported from the service floor. Eoth appellant and appellee agree that there is no difference between the first tower built by Fordees and subsequent towers built by it. The fact that the defendant’s towers derived their primary support from the service floor distinguishes its towers from plaintiff’s patent, and precludes a finding of infringement. The patent teaches sole base means support, and the method of support utilized by the defendant is substantially different from that claimed in the patent, and is simply not the equivalent. The use of a means to support the tower from the service floor cannot be considered an equivalent because this means of support is described in the prior art (Laaback patent).
For these reasons, I would conclude that the district court’s finding of infringement is not supported by the record, and reverse.

*1120