CLAIMS CONSTRUED IN LIGHT OF SPECIFICATION, DRAWINGS, AND OTHER CLAIMS

Respironics, Inc. v. Invacare Corp., [2008-1164, -1193] (December 16, 2008) NON-PRECEDENTIAL The Federal Circuit affirmed non-infringement of U.S. Patents No. 5,148,802 and 5,433,193, but because the district court erred in construing the term “shape” in the ’575 patent and erred in granting summary judgment of no anticipation of U.S. Patent Nos. 6,105,575 and 6,609,517, and vacated the grant of summary judgment of noninfringement of the ’575 patent, and reversed the grant of summary judgment of validity of the ’575 and ’517 patents.
DISCUSSION: Addressing infringement, the Federal Circuited noted that the mere fact that step four refers back to “said higher and said lower pressure magnitudes” of step one does not, as a rule, require step one to be performed before step four. However after examining the specification, the Federal Circuit noted that the preselection of higher and lower pressure magnitudes is not merely a preferred embodiment; it is the patents’ only embodiment. Thus the Federal Circuit concluded that the district court correctly construed the term “selected higher and lower pressure magnitudes” to require the pressure magnitudes to be chosen prior to operation of the computer circuitry that is used to determine whether the patient is inhaling or exhaling.
Regarding the limitation “shape”, the Federal Circuit looked to claim differentiation and to the specification and drawings to conclude that the shape of the pressure profile was different from magnitude and duration. Under this new construction, the Federal Circuit vacated the grant of summary judgment with respect to noninfringement.