Saying Too Much in the Specification Limits the Claims

Safetcare Manufacturing, Inc. v. Tele-made, Inc., [2006-1535] (August 3, 2007) [GAJARSA, Michel, Robinson]. The Federal Circuit affirmed the trial court's grant of summary judgment of non-infringement of U.S. Patent No. 6,357,065 on a variable width bariatric modular bed.
BRIEF: The only claim of the '065 Patent at issue requires "a plurality of electric motors" that exert "a pushing force on said plurality of deck sections." It was undisputed that Burke’s Tri-Flex II bed has one motor that exerts such "a pushing force", but the parties dispute whether the motor that raises the deck panel in the foot section exerts "a pushing force" and thus whether Burke’s Tri-Flex II bed has the plurality of motors required by the claim. The Federal Circuit found that the specification prevented the broad construction sought by patentee, noting the 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.
The Federal Circuit noted that the Background section describes the prior art as having electric motors that are known to apply a pulling force on structural members attached to the bed frame. The Federal Circuit found that in distinguishing its patent from the prior art that was “known to apply a pulling force on structural members,” the patentee disclosed in the Summary of the Invention that its invention uses motors that apply pushing forces against lift dogs, which are attached to the movable deck sections. The Federal Circuit conceded that distinction between using the specification to interpret the meaning of a claim and importing limitations from the specification into the claim can be a difficult one to apply in practice, but found there was no danger because it was relying on the specification merely to understand what the patentee has claimed and disclaimed. In this case, the written description repeatedly emphasizes that the motor of the patented invention applies a pushing force, not a pulling force. The Federal Circuit also found no infringement under the doctrine of equivalents, because the accused device exerts a force that is translated through the actuator to pull the lift dog toward the motor, and such a force was disavowed from the scope of the pushing force limitation.
SIGNIFICANCE: Attempts to distinguish the prior art in the Background limits the claim scope.