Vitronics Corp. v. Conceptronic, Inc.
| Decision Date | 25 July 1996 |
| Docket Number | No. 96-1058,96-1058 |
| Citation | 90 F.3d 1576,39 USPQ2d 1573 |
| Parties | , 39 U.S.P.Q.2d 1573 VITRONICS CORPORATION, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. CONCEPTRONIC, INC., Defendant-Appellee. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Federal Circuit |
James J. Foster, Wolf, Greenfield & Sacks, P.C., Boston, Massachusetts, argued, for plaintiff-appellant. With him on the brief were Lawrence M. Green and Brett N. Dorny.
Paul J. Hayes, Weingarten, Schurgin, Gagnebin & Hayes, Boston, Massachusetts, argued, for defendant-appellee. With him on the brief was Dean G. Bostock.
Before MICHEL and LOURIE, Circuit Judges, and FRIEDMAN, Senior Circuit Judge.
Vitronics Corporation ("Vitronics") appeals the September 27, 1995 order of the United States District Court for the District of New Hampshire, Civil Action No. 91-696-L, entering judgment as a matter of law that Vitronics did not prove that Conceptronic, Inc. ("Conceptronic") infringed claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 4,654,502 ("the '502 patent"). The appeal was submitted for decision after oral argument on May 8, 1996. Because we conclude that the specification of the '502 patent dictates a claim interpretation in accordance with the plaintiff's proposed construction, and that, so construed, the '502 patent may have been infringed, we reverse the trial court's decision and remand for further proceedings.
Vitronics and Conceptronic both manufacture ovens used in the production of printed circuit boards. The ovens are used to solder electrical devices (such as resistors, capacitors and integrated circuits) to the boards. Several methods of soldering devices to boards have been developed; the '502 patent, assigned to Vitronics, is directed to one of those methods.
Specifically, the '502 patent is directed to a method for the reflow soldering of surface mounted devices to a printed circuit board in which the circuit board is moved by a conveyor through a multizone oven. In this process, a solder paste is placed on the circuit board and the devices to be soldered (with attached connectors) are placed on the paste. The circuit board is then placed on what is basically a conveyor belt running through an oven and passing through several different heating zones. In the final and hottest zone, the solder paste melts and forms a connection between the device and the circuit board. The boards remain in the last heating zone for only a short duration, allowing the solder to reach a temperature high enough to cause the solder to melt and reflow while maintaining the devices themselves below the solder reflow temperature. Due to this temperature differential, the solder flows up the device connectors to form a solid connection.
Claim 1 of the '502 patent, the only claim at issue in this appeal, reads as follows (with added emphasis on the disputed terms):
1. A method for reflow soldering of surface mounted devices to a printed circuit board comprising:
moving a printed circuit board having solder and devices disposed on a surface thereof through a first zone and in close proximity to a first emitting surface of at least one nonfocused infrared panel emitter, said first emitting surface being at a first panel temperature;
moving said board through a second zone and in close proximity to a second emitting surface of at least one nonfocused infrared panel emitter, said second emitting surface being at a second panel temperature lower than said first panel temperature; and
moving said board through a third zone and in close proximity to a third emitting surface of at least one nonfocused infrared panel emitter, said third emitting surface being at a third panel temperature higher than said second panel temperature, said third emitting surface heating said board and said solder to a solder reflow temperature for a period of time sufficient to cause said solder to reflow and solder said devices to said board while maintaining the temperature of said devices below said solder reflow temperature.
This action was brought on November 26, 1991 by Vitronics against Conceptronic for infringement of both the '502 patent and U.S. Patent No. 4,833,301 ("the '301 patent"). 1 At the time the suit was filed, Conceptronic was selling the "Mark series" line of ovens. Conceptronic later discontinued the Mark series and began selling the "HVC series" line of ovens. Prior to trial, the parties stipulated that every limitation of claim 1 of the '502 patent was met by the HVC series of ovens, except the limitation requiring the utilization of "nonfocused infrared panel emitters" and the limitation that the temperature of the devices must be maintained below the "solder reflow temperature." 2
Vitronics, by way of a request for a jury instruction, asked the court to construe the meaning of the "solder reflow temperature" limitation. The specific instruction sought by Vitronics was as follows:
In considering the question of whether the '502 method patent has been infringed by the Mark and HVC Series ovens, you have to decide whether, in use, those ovens maintain the temperature of the devices below the solder reflow temperature. The phrase "solder reflow temperature" in the '502 patent means the temperature reached by the solder during the period it is reflowing during the final stages of the soldering process, sometimes referred to as the "peak solder reflow temperature." It does not mean the "liquidus temperature," the temperature at which the solder first begins to melt. Thus, if the temperature of the devices stays below that of the solder, the '502 method patent is infringed by the Mark and HVC Series ovens.
Thus, Vitronics contended that, as used in the claim, solder reflow temperature means peak reflow temperature, i.e., a temperature approximately 20? C above the liquidus temperature, at which the solder is completely melted and moves freely. Conceptronic, on the other hand, contended that solder reflow temperature means 183? C, i.e., the liquidus temperature of a particular type of solder known as 63/37 (Sn/Pb) solder. 3
The district court delayed construing the disputed language until the close of testimony, at which time it ruled in favor of Conceptronic and concluded that the term "solder reflow temperature" as used in claim 1 refers to 183? C. Vitronics then conceded that the court was required to grant judgment as a matter of law in favor of Conceptronic, as Vitronics had not presented any evidence of infringement under the court's interpretation of solder reflow temperature. This appeal followed.
In spite of Vitronics' early request for a jury instruction on the proper claim construction, the district court delayed announcing its claim construction until hearing all the evidence put forth at trial. During trial, and in their briefs to the district court in support of their respective claim constructions, the parties discussed the patent specification, expert testimony, prior testimony and writings of Vitronics and its employees, and technical references. The most pertinent materials are discussed below.
Vitronics relied heavily upon the patent itself to support its asserted claim construction. Although Vitronics conceded that the term "solder reflow temperature" may be ambiguous when considered in isolation, it argued that the specification clearly shows that, as used in the claim, solder reflow temperature means peak reflow temperature rather than the liquidus temperature. In particular, Vitronics pointed to that part of the specification that describes a preferred embodiment:
A preferred embodiment of the invention for reflow soldering of surface mounted devices to printed circuit boards will now be described. The printed circuit boards are typically made of epoxy-glass, such as fire retardant 4(FR-4), or polyamide glass. These boards typically degrade above temperatures of 225? C. The solder may be, for example, 60/40 (Sn/Pb), 63/37 (Sn/Pb), or 62/36/2 (Sn/Pb/Ag), all of which have a liquidus temperature (i.e. begin to melt) of about 190? C. and a peak reflow temperature of about 210? -218? C. Thus, to effect reflow soldering without damaging the board, the solder must be allowed to reach a temperature of at least 210? C., but the board cannot reach a temperature of 225? C.
. . . . .
The board is then sent into a fifth zone 5 to bring the temperature of the board up to a temperature of approximately 210? C., the devices up to approximately 195? C., and the solder up to approximately 210? C. for a period of time of from about 10 to about 20 seconds to cause the solder to flow. Because the devices are cooler than the board, the solder flows up the devices.... The board spends approximately 60 seconds in the fifth zone, but only about 10 to 20 seconds at 210? C. Thus, the board is at the solder reflow temperature for only a short period of time and the devices never reach the solder reflow temperature.
Vitronics pointed out that, in the example described as the preferred embodiment, the temperature of the solder is raised to 210? C, the peak reflow temperature, and the temperature of the devices is raised to 195? C, 5? above the 190? C liquidus temperature. Thus, as argued by Vitronics, the term "solder reflow temperature" must be construed so that it refers to the peak reflow temperature because the claim requires that the temperature of the devices be maintained below "said solder reflow temperature"; if solder reflow temperature were construed to refer to liquidus temperature, the preferred embodiment would not be covered by the patent claims.
Conceptronic relied heavily on the expert testimony of Dr. Rothe. Dr. Rothe testified that the meaning of the term "solder reflow temperature" in claim 1 is synonymous with liquidus temperature. Dr. Rothe further testified that the solder reflow temperature for 63/37 (Sn...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Enzo Biochem, Inc. v. Calgene, Inc., Civil Action No. 93-110-JJF.
...a patent claim, a court generally gives the words in a claim their ordinary and customary meaning. Vitronics Corp. v. Conceptronic, Inc., 90 F.3d 1576, 1582 (Fed.Cir.1996). However, "a patentee may be his [or her] own lexicographer and use terms in a manner other than their ordinary meaning......
-
Discovision Associates v. Disc Mfg., Inc.
...analysis. Usually, it is dispositive; it is the single best guide to the meaning of a disputed term. Vitronics Corp. v. Conceptronic, Inc., 90 F.3d 1576, 1582 (Fed.Cir.1996) (emphasis added) (internal citations 9. The last source of intrinsic evidence relevant to claim interpretation is the......
-
MICROAIRE SURGICAL INSTRUMENTS LLC. v. ARTHREX INC.
...[14] [15] [16] Therefore, the Court begins its claims construction analysis with the words of the claim. Vitronics Corp. v. Conceptronic, Inc., 90 F.3d 1576, 1582 (Fed.Cir.1996). The words of a claim are given their ordinary and customary meaning, which “is the meaning that the term would h......
-
W.L. Gore & Assocs., Inc. v. Medtronic, Inc.
...(noting “the claims themselves provide substantial guidance as to the meaning of particular claim terms”); Vitronics Corp. v. Conceptronic, Inc., 90 F.3d 1576, 1582 (Fed.Cir.1996) (stating that “the specification is always highly relevant to the claim construction analysis. Usually, it is d......
-
Proof of Equivalence After Festo
...is the most significant source of the legally operative meaning of disputed claim language." Vitronics Corp. v. Conceptronic, Inc., 90 F.3d 1576, 1582 (Fed. Cir. 1996) (citation First, the court is to "look to the words of the claims themselves . . . to define the scope of the patented inve......
-
Winning The Battle But Losing The War? - New Considerations For File Wrapper Estoppel
...patent applicant can indicate in the prosecution history that a term should have a special meaning. Vitronics Corp. v. Conceptronic, Inc., 90 F.3d 1576, 1582 (Fed. Cir. 1996). Just as the record of an interference involving a patent may be considered part of that patent's file wrapper, it w......
-
Implicit Redefinition Of Claim Scope
...that the meaning may be "found in or ascertained by a reading of the patent documents." Id. (citing Vitronics Corp. v. Conceptronic, Inc., 90 F.3d 1576, 1582, 1584 n.6 (Fed. Cir. 1996)). The Court noted in Vitronics, for example, that when a patentee uses a claim term throughout the entire ......
-
Claim Construction, Findings Of Fact, And Indefiniteness In The Wake Of Teva v. Sandoz
...v. Applera Corp., No. 2014-1321, 2015 U.S App. LEXIS 4064, at *18 (Fed. Cir. Mar. 16, 2015). 35 Vitronics Corp. v. Conceptronic, Inc., 90 F.3d 1576, 1582 (Fed. Cir. 36 Id. at 1583. 37 415 F.3d 1303, 1319 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc) (quoting Southwall Techs., Inc. v. Cardinal IG Co., 54 F.3d ......
-
The Rosetta Stone for the doctrine of means-plus-function patent claims.
...In re Hayes Microcomputer Prods., Inc. Patent Litig., 982 F.2d 1527, 1543 (Fed. Cir. 1992); but cf. Vitronics Corp. v. Conceptronic, Inc., 90 F.3d 1576, 1584 (Fed. Cir. 1996) (holding that extrinsic evidence cannot be introduced to interpret a (30.) Technitrol, Inc. v. Control Data Corp., 3......
-
Summary Judgment
...the claim language remains genuinely ambiguous after consideration of the intrinsic evidence”); Vitronics Corp. v. Conceptronic, Inc., 90 F.3d 1576, 1584 (Fed. Cir. 1996) (“[E]xtrinsic evidence in general, and expert testimony in particular, may be used only to help the court come to the pr......
-
Basics of Intellectual Property Laws for the Antitrust Practitioner
..., 421 F.3d at 1296; Digital Biometrics, Inc. v. Indentix, Inc., 149 F.3d 1335, 1347 (Fed. Cir. 1998); Vitronics Corp. v. Conceptronic, 90 F.3d 1576, 1582 (Fed. Cir. 1996) (the record before the Basics of Intellectual Property Laws for the Antitrust Practitioner 35 understood the invention a......
-
Claim Construction
...Markman v. Westview Instruments, Inc., 52 F.3d 967, 979 (Fed. Cir. 1995)). 32. Id. at 1315 (quoting Vitronics Corp. v. Conceptronic, Inc., 90 F.3d 1576, 1582 (Fed. Cir. 1996)). 33. Multiform Desiccants, Inc. v. Medzam, Ltd., 133 F.3d 1473, 1478 (Fed. Cir. 1998). 34. Shire Dev., LLC v. Watso......