Norgren v. ITC and SMC (CAFC 2008-1415) non-precedential

5,372,392 "Connecting devices," the asserted patent, claims "structures that connect fluid-conditioning units--e.g., filters, regulators, and lubricators (FRLs)--in a compressed air pipeline."

Rather than carefully construe the claims, the ALJ projected a logical thought stream.

Because this claim recites a "clamp adapted . . . to engage . . . the pair of ported flanges," the parties agree that we must construe "generally rectangular ported flange," which appears in the preamble of claim 1, insofar as the flange is configured to permit engagement by the clamp. The ALJ explained, "whether or not the flange on an FRL must have two or four . . . rims is the salient issue to be determined." The ALJ stated:

the word "flange," as used in the claims of the '392 patent, is the structure that is received into the claimed clamp, and further that "a generally rectangular ported flange" is a flange of rectangular shape with projections on all four sides and a hole in the middle that is used as a port.

The ALJ further explained:

In view of the fact that the clamp must be four-sided, and the clamp is specially adapted to engage the generally rectangular ported flanges of the FRLs, it is reasonable to conclude that each rectangular flange is engaged on all four of its sides by the four-sided clamp. Thus, the clamp is adapted to engage flanges with four projecting rims.

Norgren argues that the ALJ's claim construction is erroneous for requiring that each flange has projections (or projecting rims) on all four sides. We agree.

Nothing in the claims, written description or prosecution history requires four projecting rims. The claims of the '392 patent do not recite the terms "rim" or "projection." Indeed the term "rim" does not appear anywhere in the '392 patent. The specification refers to two items as projections--the hook attached to the rectangular spacer and a ridge in another embodiment of the u-shaped member--neither of which are present on the flanges or relate to the flanges in any way. See '392 patent col.2 l.62, col.3 l.1, col.4 l.19. It is true that the figures of the '392 patent depict a preferred embodiment that includes two flanges, each with four projecting rims. See id. figs.3 & 4. But these figures are the full extent to which the patent refers to flanges with four projecting rims. Thus under the well-established prohibition on importing limitations from the specification into the claims, see Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1320, 1323, the "generally rectangular ported flange" of the asserted claims of the '392 patent is not limited to a flange having four projecting rims.

Vacated and remanded.