Pfaff v. Wells Electronic, Inc.
Citation | 884 F.2d 1399,12 USPQ2d 1158 |
Decision Date | 31 August 1989 |
Docket Number | Nos. 88-1607,88-1608,s. 88-1607 |
Parties | Unpublished Disposition NOTICE: Federal Circuit Local Rule 47.8(b) states that opinions and orders which are designated as not citable as precedent shall not be employed or cited as precedent. This does not preclude assertion of issues of claim preclusion, issue preclusion, judicial estoppel, law of the case or the like based on a decision of the Court rendered in a nonprecedential opinion or order. Wayne K. PFAFF, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. WELLS ELECTRONIC, INC., Defendant/Cross-Appellant. |
Court | United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit |
Before MARKEY, Chief Judge, BALDWIN, Senior Circuit Judge, and PAULINE NEWMAN, Circuit Judge.
Wayne K. Pfaff (Pfaff) appeals from that part of a judgment of the United States District Court for the Northern District of Indiana, 1988 WL 156744, 9 USPQ2d 1366 (N.D.Ind.1988), based on a finding that United States Patent No. 4,491,377 ('377) is not infringed. Wells Electronic, Inc. (Wells) cross-appeals that part of the judgment holding the '377 patent not invalid. We affirm-in-part respecting infringement and vacate-in-part respecting validity.
OPINIONI. INFRINGEMENT
Pfaff says "axially elongated" is merely a directional limitation. Wells says it is also a limitation on shape and orientation. The court agreed with Wells, saying its pins are not "axially elongated", but "are shortened and are rolled outwardly by a return bent portion". We agree with the district court.
We agree with the district court that the claim requires coaction of the spreader means with the pin ends' inner edges which define the cavity, and that the spreader means of the Wells device coacts with a portion of the pin ends that does not define the cavity. We further agree that Wells' spreader means does not mate with inner edges defining the cavity and that the edges of the Wells pin ends do not incline in a plane "substantially parallel" to the first major face.
Pfaff's argument that his invention should be given pioneer status is raised for the first time on appeal and will not, therefore, be considered.
We agree with the district court that Pfaff was precluded by prosecution history estoppel from construing as equivalents Wells' pins with return bent parts and spreader means coacting with arms extending from the pins. In overcoming the Pauza and...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Cardinal Chemical Company v. Morton International, Inc
...Inc. v. Argus Chemical Corp., 11 USPQ2d 1152, judgt. order reported at 873 F.2d 1451 (CA Fed.1989) (nonprecedential); Pfaff v. Wells Electronic, Inc., 12 USPQ2d 1158, judgt. order reported at 884 F.2d 1399 (CA Fed.1989) (nonprecedential); Specialized Electronics Corp. v. Aviation Supplies &......
-
Cardinal chem. Co. v. Morton Int'l Inc
......order reported at 873 F.2d 1451 (CA Fed. 1989)(nonprecedential); Pfaff v. Wells Electronic, Inc. , 12 U.S.P.Q.2D (BNA) 1158, judgt. order reported at 884 F.2d 1399 (CA ......
-
Pfaff v. Wells Electronics, Inc.
...of noninfringment and vacated the district court's holding that the patent was not invalid. See Pfaff v. Wells Electronic, Inc., 884 F.2d 1399, 12 USPQ2d 1158 (Fed.Cir.1989) (Table). Pfaff sued again after Wells modified its socket designs. The district court held on summary judgment that W......
-
Pfaff v. Wells Electronics, Inc., 92-1431
...not coact with those inner Pfaff v. Wells Electronics, Inc., 9 USPQ2d 1366, 1369-70 1988 WL 156744 (N.D.Ind.1988), aff'd, 884 F.2d 1399 12 USPQ2d 1158 (Fed.Cir.1989) edges of the conductive pins that define the cavity. The unitary spreader means of the Wells device coacts with an arm extend......