Construing a Claim Consistent with the Specification without Importing Limitations is, Like Beauty, in the Eye of the Beholder

Strumbo v. Ameristep Corp., [2007-1205](November 28, 2007) [MOORE, Schall, Bryson] The Federal Circuit affirmed summary judgment of non-infringement of U.S. Patent No. 5,628,338 on a portable and collapsible hunting shelter.
SIGNIFICANCE: Where the claims and specification do not provide guidance on the function, way, or result relevant to the invention, a court must look to a person of oridnary skill in the art.
All of the terms in a claim must be given meaning.
Construing a claim consistent with the specification and importating limitations is, like beauty, in many cases in the eye of the beholder.
BRIEF: The only claim term at issue is "a closable vertical opening," which is a limitation in all nine claims of the ‘338 patent. When construing claims, a court must begin by looking to the words of the claims themselves to define the scope of the patented invention. Words of a claim "are generally given their ordinary and customary meaning" as understood by a person of ordinary skill in the art in question. For this reason, claims must be read in view of the specification, of which they are a part. Thus, the specification is the single best guide to the meaning of a disputed term. However, in examining the specification for proper context, however, this court will not at any time import limitations from the specification into the claims.

The Federal Circuit said that construing the word "vertical" as referring to merely the orientation of the opening would render the phrases "along one of said side edges" and "along one vertical corner of said structure" superfluous, a methodology of claim construction that this court has denounced. [COMMENT: ISN'T THE FEDERAL CIRCUIT MAKING THE WORD VERTICAL SUPERFLUOUS INSTEAD?] The Federal Circuit said that only if “vertical” refers to the shape of the opening instead of redundantly to the orientation of the opening would each claim term have a distinct meaning. The Federal Circuit said the specification of the ‘338 patent inherently requires a slit-like shape for the opening, noting a "linear slit is the only fathomable shape of an opening with the described characteristics." Further the Federal Circuit said "There is nothing in the specification to suggest that the patentee contemplated that any other shape of opening could work with this invention. " The Federal Circuit concluded that the district court correctly interpreted the claims in the context of the claim language and the specification.

The Federal Circuit also affirmed summary judgment of non-infringement under the Doctrine of Equivalents. Stumbo failed to provide particularized proof of the equivalence, while defendant offered explanations of how the products different in function, way, and result. While Stumbo claimed that the differences were not relevant to the claimed features, the Federal Circuit found that whenthe claims and specification of a patent are silent as to the result of a claim limitation, as they are in the ‘338 patent, it should turn to the ordinarily skilled artisan. THe only proffered proof was that of defendant as to how the results were different.