Judge Young has construed claim terms in Patent No. 5,181,252, directed to high compliance headphone driving. The construed terms are “rear cavity,” “limiting structure,” and “means for recovering from collapse of the diaphragm.”
[A previous decision relating to counterclaims in this case was discussed here: http://bostonipblog.typepad.com/dmass-ip-blog/2010/03/counterclaim-to-cancel-incontestable-trademark-dismissed-inequitable-conduct-claims-stay.html#tp]
Mostly Judge Young focuses on the intrinsic evidence in a straightforward analysis that adopts constructions proposed by the patentee. But in the section dealing with the “limiting structure” limitation, the opinion expresses frustration with the Federal Circuit’s use of the term “presumption” both in regard to the application of § 112, ¶ 6 to claim terms that do not expressly invoke “means for” language, as well as its use generally in the Federal Circuit jurisprudence.
Ultimately Judge Young found that “limiting structure” should not be construed as invoking means plus function treatment, but in doing so he laments the Federal Circuit’s Cybor line of cases which state that claim construction is a purely legal question, given the amount of fact finding that must necessarily happen (particularly when determining whether a disputed claim term has a meaning understood by a person of skill in the art for purposes of whether to apply § 112, ¶ 6).
A great quote from this section in dealing with dueling expert submissions which “cancel each other out”: “Affidavits, of course, bear about as much relation to reality as does a Potemkin village.”
Bose Corp. v. Lightspeed Aviation, Inc., 09-10222-WGY (D. Mass. Apr. 26, 2010)
Comments