Court Opinion

ID: 9495416
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-05 16:02:17.962044+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:57:00.469544
License: Public Domain

CLEVENGER, Circuit Judge,
dissenting in part.
The court holds that there is sufficient structure disclosed in the '368 and '205 patents to salvage the means-plus-function limitations in those- patents from invalidity for failure to recite structure -corresponding to the means limitations, as is required by 35 U.S.C. § 112(2). I respectfully dissent from the court’s decision regarding the '205 patent.
With respect to the '368 patent, the question is whether there is any structure disclosed in the written description to mate with the “means for rotating.” The majority opinion is somewhat opaque regarding the structure ■ that corresponds to the means for rotating the plate cylinder. Figure 1 (with numbers identifying pieces of structure) discloses the alternative embodiment in which the “impression cylinder” drives each plate cylinder. From Figure 1 it is clear that the impression cylinder 28d, itself rotated by some undisclosed structure, indirectly causes the plate cylinder 24d to rotate because the rotation of the impression cylinder forces the blanket cylinder 26d to rotate, which causes the plate cylinder next to it to rotate. Since the “means for rotating” applies only to plate cylinders, and not to the “driving” impression cylinder, no structure need be disclosed to cause the impression cylinder to rotate. So long as the written description includes specific structure that corresponds to the means for rotating the plate cylinders, the patent survives the validity challenge.
Because of the presence of the impression cylinder as the “means for rotating” the plate cylinders, I agree that the '368 patent survives the validity challenge. I would not, however, retrieve that patent from the invalidity grave because of the drawing of the plate cylinder in Figure 1, which the majority concedes is somewhat shaky evidence of structure to mate with the means for rotating. All that Figure 1 shows regarding the plate cylinder is that it has a hole in it. Figure 1 does not depict a spindle, or any other kind of structure to rotate the plate cylinder, beyond the “driving” impression cylinder 28d discussed above. Figure 1 is depicted below, so the reader can easily know what I (and the majority) am talking about.
*1353[[Image here]]
The '205 patent is not so lucky. It does not have an alternative embodiment for the “mounting means” to fall back on where the written description otherwise fails to disclose any structure that corresponds to the mounting means.
Claim 11 of the '205 patent recites a “mounting means for mounting said plate on said cylinder.” The district court found the corresponding section 112(6) structure to consist of “the structure disclosed in Figure 1 of the patent.” Figure 1 discloses a cut-out Y-notch section of the cylinder, while the specification provides that, “[t]he cylinder 10 includes a cut-out portion or void 14 which allows access for securing or removing the ‘printing plate 12.” '205 patent, col. 4, lines 14-16 (emphasis added).
While the V-notch structure may indicate the location of the mounting means, it says nothing about the structure itself. Indeed, the underlined language above in the patent itself strongly suggests that the V-notch merely provides access to the mounting means located therein.
The testimony at trial corresponds to this:
Q: And what would normally be in a V notch of that sort?
A: It would be the hold-down mechanism. To hold plates in place.
To be sure, as the majority notes, there is ample evidence in the form of testimony and prior art patents saying that some kind of hold down mechanism is placed in the V-notch to act as the means for mounting. But under our precedent, that evidence is simply irrelevant (even inadmissible) if there is no structure disclosed in the written description that corresponds to the means limitation. Here, there is no such structure to which the majority can point.
The specification’s bare disclosure of the V-notch is not structure for the purposes of section 112(6). Consequently, the '205 patent should be held invalid for failure to meet the statutory test for section 112(6) claims. On this point, I depart from the majority opinion, which otherwise I join in full.