Jonsson v. Stanley Works
| Decision Date | 11 May 1990 |
| Docket Number | No. 89-1550,89-1550 |
| Citation | 903 F.2d 812,14 USPQ2d 1863 |
| Parties | Bert O. JONSSON, Besam Ab and Besam, Inc., Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. The STANLEY WORKS, Defendant-Appellee. The STANLEY WORKS, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. BESAM, INC., Defendant-Appellant. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Federal Circuit |
Richard S. Clark, Brumbaugh, Graves, Donohue & Raymond, New York City, argued for plaintiffs-appellants. With him on the brief were James J. Maune and Robert C. Scheinfeld. Also on the brief were Albert J. Knopp and Thomas Shunk, Baker & Hostetler, Cleveland, Ohio, of counsel.
Peter L. Costas, Costas, Montgomery & Dorman P.C., Hartford, Conn., argued for defendant-appellee. With him on the brief were Ralph H. Chilton, Chilton, Alix & VanKirk, Hartford, Conn. and Christopher B. Fagan, Fay, Sharpe, Beall, Fagan, Minnich & McKee, of Cleveland, Ohio, of counsel.
Before MARKEY, Chief Judge, NEWMAN, Circuit Judge, and RE, Chief Judge. *
Plaintiffs-appellants, Bert O. Jonsson, Besam AB, and Besam, Inc. (collectively Jonsson), appeal from an order of the United States District Court for the Northern District of Ohio (Lambros, J.), which granted the motion of defendant-appellee, The Stanley Works, for partial summary judgment of non-infringement of United States Patents Nos. 4,560,912, and 4,467,251, for automatic swing door opening systems. The district court certified the judgment under Rule 54(b), Fed.R.Civ.P. Jonsson contends that the district court erred in its determination that Stanley's Sentrex and Sentrex 2 automatic door opening systems do not infringe Jonsson's patents.
The question presented on this appeal is whether the district court erred in its determination that there are no genuine issues of material fact, and that Stanley's Sentrex and Sentrex 2 automatic door opening systems do not infringe Jonsson's United States Patents Nos. 4,560,912 (the '912 patent), and 4,467,251 (the '251 patent).
Since the district court committed no error in concluding that there are no genuine issues of material fact, and that Stanley's
Sentrex units do not infringe the patents in suit, we affirm.
In 1980, inventor Bert Jonsson filed United States Patent Application No. 155,008 (the '008 application), which contained 18 claims reciting an object sensor and an automatic door opening system. Claims 1-15 dealt specifically with the object sensor, and claims 16-18 dealt with the automatic door system. Claim 16 stated that the automatic door system uses radiation emitters that produce "a diverging beam of radiation in response to supplied electrical signals ... [and] radiation detecting elements for receiving radiation reflected from an object...." In the specification, Jonsson stated that the sensors and emitters utilize "diverging rather than focused beams of radiation...." Jonsson also stated that the "multiple emitters illuminate the object and multiple receivers detect the reflected signal[,]" and that "the sensitivity of the detectors is greatly reduced with distance as compared to focused beam illumination and detecting devices." The examiner, in an office action dated January 21, 1981, rejected all the claims of the '008 application as being unpatentable in view of the prior art.
Subsequently, Jonsson submitted an amendment to the '008 application. In the amended claim 16, Jonsson claimed that the radiation emitters produce "a diverging beam of diffuse radiation in response to supplied electrical signals...." (emphasis added). According to the amended specification, the sensors and emitters use "a plurality of overlapping diverging light beams, forming diffuse light, rather than focused beams of radiation...." (emphasis added). The amended specification noted that the "multiple emitters illuminate the object with diffuse light and multiple receivers detect the reflected diffuse light." (emphasis added). It also noted that "the sensitivity of the detectors is greatly reduced with distance because of the diffuse nature of the illumination and detection, as compared to focused beam illumination and detecting devices." (emphasis added).
In his remarks accompanying the amendments, Jonsson distinguished his invention from the prior art, namely United States Patent No. 3,852,592 (the Scoville patent), by stating that "[a]n important distinction between the present invention and the Scoville disclosure is the fact that the present invention uses diffuse light, originating from many sources, to illuminate a region of space." (emphasis added). Jonsson explained that his "system requires the use of multiple emitters and multiple detectors, all radiating or receiving energy from the same region of space." According to Jonsson, "[u]nlike the Scoville systems, the energy radiated is diffuse and an object must be illuminated by many emitters and reflect energy into many detectors in order to develop sufficient energy at the detectors to indicate the presence of an object." (emphasis added).
Attached to Jonsson's amended '008 application were a group of hand-drawn diagrams of the "diffuse light" produced by the automatic door system. In his remarks, Jonsson stated that "[t]he final sketch on the enclosure illustrates the operation of the present invention wherein the existence of many emitters, preferably in a linear array, provides an illumination source which is best described as diffuse."
In a response to an action of the Patent and Trademark Office which rejected his amended application, Jonsson commented that the term "diffuse" "has been added in an effort to more accurately describe the nature of the illumination which is provided by the array of cooperatively acting light sources, which is described in this application." Jonsson defined "diffuse," from Webster's Third New International Dictionary, as "moving in many directions."
On February 10, 1982, the examiner allowed claims 16-18, which dealt with the automatic door opening system. These claims were made part of a continuation-in-part application of the '008 application, and eventually became claims 1-3 of Jonsson's '251 patent, which was granted on August 21, 1984.
Jonsson's '251 patent discloses an automatic door opening system that uses radiation emitters and sensors, located on both sides of the door, to indicate the presence of an oncoming person. The sensors transmit signals to a door control mechanism, which operates the opening of the door. The first claim of the '251 patent, which is the only independent claim, recites that the radiation emitters consist of "a plurality of elements, each for emitting a diverging beam of diffuse radiation in response to supplied electrical signals...." The radiation sensors are set forth in claim 1 as "a plurality of radiation detecting elements for receiving radiation reflected from an object, and a receiver connected to said detecting elements for providing an output signal representative of the presence of an object...."
On August 20, 1984, Jonsson filed a second continuation-in-part application from the '008 application. On December 24, 1985, this application was issued as Jonsson's '912 patent.
The claims of the '912 patent more broadly claim the object sensing apparatus of Jonsson's automatic door system. The '251 patent discloses "a plurality of elements" used for the emission and detection of radiation. In contrast, the first claim of the '912 patent, which is the only independent claim, sets forth that the object sensing apparatus has "means for emitting a diverging beam of diffuse radiation in response to a supplied electrical signal, means supplying an electrical signal to said emitting means, [and] radiation detecting means for providing an output signal representative of the presence of an object...."
Jonsson granted an exclusive worldwide license under the '251 patent to Besam AB, a Swedish corporation. Besam AB granted an exclusive United States license to its wholly owned subsidiary, Besam, Inc. Jonsson's automatic door operating system was marketed by Besam AB and Besam, Inc. as "Visionpulse."
Stanley's Sentrex and Sentrex 2 automatic door opening systems involve sensor units located on either side of the door. The Sentrex 2 consists of two sensor units, with one on each side of the door, while the Sentrex system has four sensor units, with two on each side of the door. Each of the sensor units used in Stanley's Sentrex systems has seven emitters and one detector, and each of the sensor units used in the Sentrex 2 systems has eight emitters and one detector.
In 1985, Jonsson filed a complaint against Stanley in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Ohio, alleging that the Sentrex and Sentrex 2 automatic door opening systems infringe Jonsson's '251 patent. Stanley counterclaimed, seeking a declaratory judgment that the '251 patent was invalid and not infringed. Stanley also filed a separate action, in the United States District Court for the District of Connecticut, seeking damages from Besam, Inc. for unfair competition, and a declaratory judgment that Jonsson's '912 patent is invalid, unenforceable, and noninfringed. The cases were consolidated before the district court in Ohio.
Contending that the Sentrex systems do not infringe the '912 and '251 patents, Stanley moved for partial summary judgment and the court granted Stanley's motion. See Jonsson v. Stanley Works, 711 F.Supp. 1395, 11 USPQ2d 1200 (N.D.Ohio 1989).
In its opinion, the district court set forth the claims of the '912 and '251 patents that are in issue, and extensively reviewed the prosecution history of Jonsson's patents. See Jonsson, 711 F.Supp. at 1399-1402. The district court then discussed Stanley's Sentrex devices, and stated that:
The parties do not dispute that in the Sentrex units, the infrared emitters of all of the sensor units are pulsed, one at a time, in pulse bursts in a predetermined sequence. An emitter is pulsed on one side of the door, and then an emitter...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
California Medical Products v. Tecnol Med. Prod., Civil A. No. 91-620-LON.
...may be overcome. See Tandon Corp. v. U.S. Int'l Trade Comm'n, 831 F.2d 1017, 1023-24 (Fed.Cir.1987); Jonsson v. Stanley Works, 903 F.2d 812, 820 (Fed.Cir. 1990) (Federal Circuit found it unnecessary to review doctrine of claim differentiation argument because district court's finding that c......
-
Micro Chemical, Inc. v. Great Plains Chemical Co.
...is a question of law. The claims must be interpreted the same way for validity as they are for infringement. Jonsson v. Stanley Works, 903 F.2d 812, 821 (Fed.Cir. 1990); SmithKline Diagnostics, Inc. v. Helena Laboratories Corp., 859 F.2d 878, 882 (Fed.Cir.1988). 72. The claim language shoul......
-
Pall Corp. v. Micron Separations, Inc., Civ. A. No. 86-1427-Y.
...Inc., 904 F.2d 1558, 1563 (Fed. Cir.1990), cert. dismissed, ___ U.S. ___, 111 S.Ct. 1434, 113 L.Ed.2d 485 (1991); Jonsson v. Stanley Works, 903 F.2d 812, 821 (Fed.Cir.1990); W.L. Gore & Assocs., 721 F.2d at 1558. This means that a patentee can choose his own terms and use them as he wishes ......
-
Jeneric/Pentron, Inc. v. Dillon Company, Inc., No. 3:98cv818(EBB) (D. Conn. 8/27/2001), 3:98cv818(EBB).
...restricted the scope of the claims in each of the later issued child patents containing that term); see also Jonsson v. Stanley Works, 903 F.2d 812, 818 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (finding that because the patent at issue was the result of a "continuation-in-part" application from a prior application......