No Equivalence Where to do so Would Vitiate the Claim Limitation

Wleklinski v. Targus, Inc., [2007-1273](December 19, 2007)[SCHALL, Rader, Prost] The Federal Circuit affirmed summary judgment of non-infringement of U.S. Patent No. 4,976,388.
BRIEF: The Federal Circuit affirmed the finding of no literal infringement, finding that the claim's requirement of an auxiliary strap means "including first and second separate end sections made of a relatively non-stretchable material, and also including a separate center section made of material which is longitudinally stretchable"was not met. The Federal Circuit said that the plain meaning of the claim language requires that the center and end sections of the strap be composed of different materials. The limitation refers to the end sections of the strap being "made of a relatively non-stretchable material" and the center section of the strap being "made of material which is longitudinally stretchable". At the same time, the center and end sections are both described as being "separate" from each other. The Federal Circuit said that the most persuasive reading of the claim language is that the center and end sections are constructed of different materials, and rejected Comfort Strapp’s proposed construction as inconsistent with this plain meaning.
The Federal Circuit also found no error in granting summary judgment of no infringement under the doctrine of equivalents. As the district court found, the accused strap, which has an auxiliary strap means composed of a single unitary material made of the same fabric, is the fundamental opposite of the claimed invention, in which the auxiliary strap means requires separate sections made of different materials. A finding of infringement under the doctrine of equivalents would impermissibly vitiate claim limitations, citing Freedman Seating Co. v. Am. Seating Co., 420 F.3d 1350, 1358 (Fed. Cir. 2005) ("[A]n element of an accused product or process is not, as a matter of law, equivalent to a limitation of the claimed invention if such a
finding would entirely vitiate the limitation."). The Federal Circuit said that "claim 1 requires separate center and end sections that are made of different materials; finding equivalence with a single strap lacking separate sections and different materials would impermissibly vitiate this limitation."