Court Rejects Attempts to Add Limitations Regarding How the Claimed Device is Made

Colassi v. Cybex International, Inc., [2006-1231](February 14, 2007) NON-PRECEDENTIAL The Federal Circuit affirmed the district court's claim construction, order precluding Cybex from arguing the reverse doctrine of equivalaents, and denial of Cybex's motion for judgement as a matter of law on Colassi's claim for infringement of U.S. Patent No. 6,123,646 on a Treadmill Belt Support Deck.
BRIEF: The Federal Circuit rejected Cybex's claim construction required that the planar member, anchor means and hinge be "structurally separate" because the preferred embodiment disclosed three separate parts permanently joined together. The Federal Circuit found no basis to introduce a limitation on how the device was constructed into the claim. The Federal Circuit also rejected Cybex's position that the hinge had to absorb "horizontal shock" based on a statement that the hinge was "preferably" located in a position where it could absorb horizontal shock. The Federal Circuit rejected Cybex's arguments about the means plus function language because the basis for their complaint was unclear and apparently not preserved. Finally, the Federal Circuit found no basis in the record for determining that the Doctrine of Reverse Equivalents applied, so it could find no error in the district court's refusal to allow Cybex to argue reverse equivalents.