Meridian Manufacturing Inc v. C&B Manufacturing Inc

Filing 52

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER Regarding Construction of Disputed Patent Claim Terms. On or before 6/16/2017, the parties shall file a joint report concerning proposed new dates. Upon review of the parties' report, I will determine whether another telephonic status conference is necessary. Signed by Chief Judge Leonard T Strand on 6/9/17. (djs)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF IOWA
WESTERN DIVISION
MERIDIAN MANUFACTURING,
INC.,
No. C15-4238-LTS
Plaintiffs,
vs.
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND
ORDER REGARDING
CONSTRUCTION OF DISPUTED
PATENT CLAIM TERMS

C&B MANUFACTURING, INC. d/b/a
HITCHDOC,
Defendant.

___________________________

I.

INTRODUCTION

This action is before me for submission to the parties of a ruling on patent claims
construction after a Markman hearing.1

Plaintiff Meridian Manufacturing, Inc.

(Meridian), holds United States Patent No. 6,964,551 B1 (‘551 patent) which, as will be
discussed, involves component claims for an agricultural trailer.

In its complaint,

Meridian alleges that defendant C&B Manufacturing, Inc. (HitchDoc), is a competitor
that also makes agricultural equipment, including trailers that infringe on the ‘551 patent.
The parties dispute the construction of certain claims contained in the ‘551 patent.
II.
A.

HISTORY

Procedural History
Meridian filed its complaint (Doc. No. 2) on November 23, 2015. On June 3,

2016, the parties presented a technical tutorial on the background of the technology at
1

See Markman v. Westview Instruments, Inc., 52 F.3d 967 (Fed. Cir. 1995) (en banc), aff’d,
517 U.S. 370 (1996).

issue in the case. See Doc. No. 19. The parties filed a joint claim construction statement
on October 17, 2016. Doc. No. 24. On November 1, 2016, both parties filed their claim
construction briefs. Doc. Nos. 30, 31. Both parties then filed rebuttals, Doc. Nos. 35
and 37, and Meridian filed a supplement. Doc. No. 41. The parties appeared for a
Markman hearing on January 11, 2017.
B.

History of the ‘551 Patent
As the parties, or at least their attorneys, are well aware, Markman hearings often

descend into competitions to confound the court with technical terminology.2
Fortunately, this case involves a relatively simple patent – for an agricultural trailer –
and primarily concerns only claims related to the mechanism by which a seed box is put
on and attached to the trailer.
A brief bit of context is necessary to explain the issues in this case. Farmers use
planters, large pieces of equipment often attached to tractors, to plant seeds in their fields.
Tractors drag the planters through fields and the planters deposit individual seed
quantities into the ground at the appropriate locations. Before that can happen, the seeds,
which come from large agri-businesses, must make their way from the agri-business to
the farm and then into the planters. The agri-businesses deliver seeds to farms in large
boxes, which cannot be maneuvered without mechanical assistance. A farmer must use
See Richard H. Abramson, Presenting Technologically Complex Cases to Lay Judges and
Juries, 14 Hastings Comm. & Ent L.J. 259, 262 (1992) (comment):

2

There is another phenomenon at work as well. Having mastered the technology—
or at least the jargon—a perverse and self-destructive impulse, known in the Latin
as ego technologus idiotis, sweeps over the advocate. Caught in its grip, counsel
succumbs to the urge to show off his technical wizardry and jargon, and
technobabble dances lightly off his tongue.

2

a forklift to load the boxes onto a trailer and drive the trailer to the planter. The farmer
then uses a motorized mechanism (such as an auger), attached to the trailer, to remove
the seeds from the boxes and deposit them into the planter. The ‘551 patent discloses a
trailer that transports seed boxes to the planter and transfers the seeds into that planter.
As described in the abstract:
An improved trailer for transporting bulk seed boxes is provided. The
trailer includes a bed, a hopper extending below the bed for receiving seed
from the bulk seed box, and an auger for unloading seed from the hopper.
The bed includes upwardly and outwardly extending guide plates to provide
self-centering of the seed box when the box is loaded onto the bed with a
forklift truck. The bed includes lock bars moveable between locked and
unlocked positions to secure the seed box to the bed. The hopper includes
a slide gate with a control arm connected to the gate and extending to the
auger side of the trailer for moving the slide gate between open and closed
position. The auger includes a foldable upper section which is pivotal
between a folded transport position and an extended raised operative
position. The folding of the upper auger section is facilitated by a gas
cylinder and a lever arm.
Doc. No. 30-2 at 1.3 Or, as illustrated in the patent:

3

Meridian alternately refers to the trailer as a seed tender.

3

Doc. No. 2-1 at 1.
In describing the claims of the ‘551 patent that are in dispute, Meridian states:
The []551 Patent has nineteen claims, of which only claims 1, 2, 3, 9, 10
and 11 are at issue. These claims are . . .:
1.
An improved trailer for transporting a bulk seed box, the box having
first and second sidewalls, a bottom, a top, and a flange extending along
the sidewalls adjacent the bottom of the box, the trailer comprising:
a wheeled bed for supporting a bulk seed box, the bed having a
perimeter edge;
4

a hopper extending below the bed for receiving seed from the bulk
seed box;
a conveyor operatively connected to the hopper for unloading seed
from the hopper; and
the bed having guide plates inclining upwardly and outwardly from
the perimeter edge of the bed to facilitate centering of the box on the
bed.
2.
The improved trailer of claim 1 wherein the bed has four corners
and the guide plates are located at the corners of the bed.
3.
The improved trailer of claim 1 further comprising lock bars on the
bed to overlappingly engage the flange of the seed box to secure the seed
box to the bed.
9.
The improved trailer of claim 1 wherein the conveyor is an auger
including a first inner section and a second outer section pivotally attached
to the first section for movement between transport and discharge positions,
and including a gas cylinder to facilitate movement of the second section
between the transport and discharge positions.
10. The improved trailer of claim 1 wherein each guide plate extends
outwardly at an obtuse angle from the bed.
11. The improved trailer of claim 1 wherein the guide plates define an
enlarged box entrance sloping downwardly and inwardly toward the bed so
that the box will automatically center on the bed when loaded onto the bed.
Doc. No. 31 at 7-8. HitchDoc agrees these are the disputed claims. In addition, the
parties generally agree on the patent history, although they disagree about what it means.
Accordingly, I will highlight only the history relevant to the disputed claims.
The original patent application (submitted by patentee Garry Friesen) was rejected
on August 20, 2002, by Examiner James Keenan. Doc. No. 31-2. Relevant to this order,
5

Keenan rejected the ‘551 patent because of a prior patent, Patent No. 6,092,974 (the Roth
patent). Keenan stated:
Roth shows a trailer for bulk seed containers including wheeled bed 12,
hopper 64, conveyor 60, and guide plates 52 which extend “upwardly and
outwardly”, as broadly claimed. Although the containers are not disclosed
as having a flange, it is noted that the container structure is not a positively
claimed limitation. Since the trailer could be used, without modification,
for flanged containers, it is considered to meet all claim limitations. . .
Claims 3 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S. C. 103(a) as being unpatentable
over Roth in view of Ehlers. . .
Claims 3 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Roth in view of Ehlers.
Roth does not show lock bars for engaging flanges on the boxes. It
would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of
the invention to have added lock bars to engage flanges on the boxes, as
shown by Ehlers, as this would provide a more secure engagement of the
boxes for travel over rough terrain.
Claims 11-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Ehlers in view of Titcombe (US 3,868,083).
Ehlers does not show the lock bars to be pivotally mounted, although
the rear bar 40 is movably mounted. Titcombe shows pivotally mounted
bars for lockingly engaging a flange of a container on a trailer as it is being
pulled across a field. It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill
in the art at the time of the invention to have modified the apparatus of
Ehlers by pivotally mounting the lock bars for movement between locking
and unlocking positions, as shown by Titcombe, as this would accord a
more convenient means of securing the boxes on the vehicle.
Doc. No. 31-2 at 4, 6-8. Keenan went on to reject several more claims (4, 5, 7, and 1417) because of the Roth patent’s claims related to lock bars and guide plates. Id. at 810.
6

The Roth patent discloses a similar type of agricultural trailer. It claims that “[t]he
top of the trailer bed 12 has two square bulk container decks 50 that are positioned end
to end, and are the mirror images of each other. Each container deck 50 includes a
retainer lip 52 that extends up from three sides of each deck 50 leaving the right side
open to receive a bulk container 100.” Doc. No. 30-15 at 5. See below:

Id. at 2.
Following the first rejection, Friesen amended his patent claims. Doc. No. 31-3.
As explained in the amendment:
Claim 1 as filed provided that the guide plates extended “upwardly
and outwardly” to facilitate centering of the box on the bed. The Examiner
asserts that the Roth plates 52 meet this limitation, as do the Kruse plates
64. Both the Roth plates 52 and the Kruse plates 64 extend straight
upwardly, and not outwardly. To further clarify “outwardly,” Applicant
7

has amended claim 1 to provide that the guide plates are “inclining
upwardly and outwardly from the bed.” The Roth plates 52 and Kruse
plates 64 clearly do not incline outwardly from the bed, as required by
claim 1. Therefore, claim 1 distinguishes over the cited references so as to
be in proper form for allowance. . .
New claims 26-28 also depend from claim 1 and should be allowable
as depending from an allowable base claim. Furthermore, claim 26 provides
that each guide plate has “a lower edge connected to the perimeter edge of
the bed and an upper edge spaced upwardly and outwardly from the
perimeter edge.” The plates 52 of Roth and 64 of Kruse do not have an
upper edge spaced upwardly and outwardly from the perimeter edge.
Therefore, claim 26 further distinguishes over the cited references so as to
be allowable.
Claim 27 provides that each guide plate extends “outwardly at an
obtuse angle from the bed.” The Roth plates 52 and Kruse plates 64 extend
perpendicular to the bed, and therefore do not meet the limitation of claim
27. Therefore, claim 27 further distinguishes over the cited references so
as to be allowable.
Claim 28 provides that the guide plates “define an enlarged box
entrance sloping downwardly and inwardly toward the bed so that the box
atomically centers on the bed when loaded onto the bed.” This is best seen
in Figures 2 and 3, wherein the guide plate 22A slopes downwardly and
inwardly toward the bed 14. The plates of Roth and Kruse do not slope
downwardly and inwardly towards the bed, and thus do not satisfy the
limitations of claim 28. Therefore, claim 28 distinguishes over the cited
references so as to be allowable.
Id. at 7-8. Friesen also amended claim 10, adding the words:
each lock bar being pivotally connected to the bed for movement between
an unlocked position spaced outwardly from the perimeter edge of the bed
and locked position spaced inwardly from the perimeter edge of the bed.
Id. at 4.

8

The application was again rejected, this time, in relevant part, because both of the
Roth patent and Patent No. 1,675,701 (the Fitch Patent). Doc. No. 31-4. The Fitch
Patent, from 1925, is titled simply “Freight Truck.” Doc. No. 30-16 at 2. In relevant
part, the corners of the bed were visually described:

Doc. No. 30-16 at 2. The Fitch patent stated:
A preferred apparatus for carrying out my invention is illustrated in
the drawings, wherein Fig. 1 is a side elevation of a truck. having a
removable body thereon; Fig 2 is a rear elevation of the truck shown in
Fig. 1; Fig. 3 is a perspective diagrammatic view of a truck with the body
removed therefrom and showing a locking bolster which operates in
accordance with my invention. . . To position the container on the truck
while allowing it to be readily placed or removed, I provide four corner
brackets, two of which 20-20 are located just behind the cab of the truck,
and the other two of which 21-21 are adjacent the rear end. Each of these
9

brackets has a side wall 22 and an end wall 23, and a bottom or floor portion
24 which forms a supporting seat for the body. As shown, the side walls
and end walls of the brackets are inwardly beveled from their upward edges
to enable the body to be read[]ily centered as it is put into position.
Id. at 5. In rejecting Friesen’s amendment, Keenan stated:
Roth shows a trailer for bulk seed containers including wheeled bed
12, hopper 64, conveyor 60, and guide plates 52 which extend upwardly
from the bed. Although the containers are not disclosed as having a flange,
it is noted that the container structure is not a positively claimed limitation.
Since the trailer could be used, without modification, for flanged
containers, it is considered to meet this claim limitation.
Roth does not, however, show the guide plates to incline outwardly
from the bed.
Fitch shows a load bed of a vehicle wherein guide plates 20-21 have
inner surfaces which incline upwardly and outwardly from the bed to enable
a load to be “readily centered as it is put into position” on the bed (page 1,
line 90).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the
time of the invention to have modified the apparatus of Roth by utilizing
guide plates which inclined outwardly, as shown by Fitch, as this would
make loading easier by compensating for some misalignment as the load is
lowered onto the bed.
Doc. No. 31-4 at 3. Keenan rejected the claims related to lock bars for the same reasons
set out in the first rejection. Doc. No. 31-4 at 5-8.
Friesen filed an appeal, stating:
Applicant's claim 1 requires “guide plates inclining upwardly and
outwardly from the perimeter edge of the bed to facilitate centering of the
box on the bed”. These guide plates are much different than those shown
in Roth, Fitch or Kruse. In the Final Office Action, the Examiner
acknowledged the Applicant's specific claim language of “guide plates
inclining upwardly and outwardly” are not shown by Roth and Kruse (see
Final Action, pages 2 and 3). Moreover, in the Final Office Action, the
10

Examiner characterized the teaching of Fitch to be a bracket having inner
surfaces which incline upwardly and outwardly from the bed (Final Office
Action, page 2). It is clear in Figure 5 of Fitch that the brackets do not
extend beyond the perimeter of the bed, as required by claim 1.
However, in his Answer, the Examiner has now changed his analysis
of Fitch from that which is clearly shown in Fitch to a broader “concept”
of an “outwardly angled bracket to position and center the container on the
bed” (Answer, page 4). This is an overly broad mischaracterization of the
teaching of Fitch, and is impermissible hindsight by the Examiner. All
Fitch teaches is a bracket at the perimeter edge of the bed with an inwardly
sloping surface. Nowhere in Roth, Kruse nor Fitch is it taught that the
bracket extend outside the perimeter edge of the bed, pursuant to claim 1.
Therefore, the § 103 obviousness rejection should be reversed with regard
to claim 1.
Doc. No. 31-7 at 2-3. The Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences (Board) agreed
with Friesen, stating:
Based on our analysis and review of Roth and claim 1, it is our
opinion that the only difference is the limitation that the bed has “guide
plates inclining upwardly and outwardly from the perimeter edge of the bed
to facilitate centering of the box on the bed.” With regard to this difference,
the examiner determined (final rejection, p. 2) that (1) “[i]t would have
been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention
to have modified the apparatus of Roth by utilizing guide plates which
inclined outwardly, as shown by Fitch, as this would make loading easier
by compensating for some misalignment as the load is lowered onto the
bed” and (2) “although the guide plates as modified do not have an upper
edge that extends beyond the bed perimeter, it would have merely been a
further design expediency to have so constructed the plates to compensate
for even greater loading misalignment and/or misshapen containers.” We
do not agree for the reasons that follow.
Based on our analysis and review of Kruse and claim 1, it is our
opinion that the differences are (1) the bed lacks “guide plates inclining
upwardly and outwardly from the perimeter edge of the bed to facilitate
centering of the box on the bed” and (2) the bed is not part of trailer so as
to constitute a wheeled bed. With regard to these differences, the examiner
11

determined (final rejection, p. 3) that (1) “it would have been obvious for
one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to have modified
the apparatus of Kruse by adding wheels thereto so as to create a trailer
vehicle, as this would offer greater flexibility and support” and (2) “[i]t
would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of
the invention to have modified the apparatus of Kruse by utilizing guide
plates which inclined outwardly, as shown by Fitch, as this would make
loading easier by compensating for some misalignment as the load is
lowered onto the bed.” We do not agree for the reasons that follow.
In our view, the applied art (i.e., Roth and Fitch or Kruse and Fitch)
would not have made it obvious at the time the invention was made to a
person having ordinary skill in the art to have modified either Roth or Kruse
so as to arrive at the subject matter of claim 1. Claim 1 requires that the
bed has “guide plates inclining upwardly and outwardly from the perimeter
edge of the bed to facilitate centering of the box on the bed.” However,
this limitation is not suggested by the applied prior art. In that regard,
while Fitch does teach corner brackets having inclined walls within the
perimeter edge of the bed, Fitch does not teach or suggest using guide plates
inclining upwardly and outwardly from the perimeter edge of the bed to
facilitate centering of a container on the bed. To supply this omission in
the teachings of the applied prior art, the examiner made a determination
that although the guide plates suggested by the applied prior art do not have
an upper edge that extends beyond the bed perimeter, it would have merely
been a further design expediency to have so constructed the plates.
However, this determination has not been supported by any evidence that
would have led an artisan to arrive at the claimed invention.
In our view, the only suggestion for modifying the applied prior art
in the manner proposed by the examiner to arrive at the subject matter of
claim 1 stems from hindsight knowledge derived from the appellant's own
disclosure. The use of such hindsight knowledge to support an obviousness
rejection under 35 U.S. C. § 103 is, of course, impermissible. See. for
example, W. L. Gore and Assocs .. Inc. v. Garlock. Inc., 721 F.2d 1540,
1553,220 USPQ 303, 312-13 (Fed. Cir. 1983), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 851
(1984).
For the reasons set forth above, the decision of the examiner to reject
claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 is reversed.
12

Doc. No. 31-9 at 8-11 (footnote omitted). The Board similarly overturned the prior
rejections related to the flanges and lockbars, stating:
To supply this omission in the teachings of the applied prior art, the
examiner made a determination (final rejection, pp. 4-5) that the pivoting
lock bars of Titcombe, when added to the Ehlers apparatus, would
necessarily be placed at the bed perimeter and the unlocked position would
logically then be outside this perimeter; otherwise, loading would be
difficult if not impossible. However, this determination has not been
supported by any evidence that would have led an artisan to arrive at the
claimed invention. In that regard, we note that if the pivoting lock bars of
Titcombe where to be added to the Ehlers apparatus they would necessarily
be placed beyond the perimeter of the containers but not necessarily be
placed so that the unlocked position would be spaced outside the perimeter
edge of the bed.
In any event, we fail to see any suggestion or motivation in the
teachings of the applied prior art to make Ehlers' lock bars pivotable as
claimed. At best, Titcombe would have suggested making Ehlers' locking
plate 40 pivotable, however, this does not result in the claimed subject
matter. In our view, the only suggestion for modifying Ehlers to arrive at
the subject matter of claim 10 stems from hindsight knowledge derived from
the appellant's own disclosure. As stated above, the use of such hindsight
knowledge to support an obviousness rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103 is
impermissible.
For the reasons set forth above, the decision of the examiner to reject
claim 10 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 is reversed.
Doc. No. 31-9 at 17-18. Based on the Board’s decision, Friesen was issued the ‘551
patent now owned by Meridian.
III.

APPLICABLE STANDARDS

Before the fact finder can consider a claim of patent infringement, the court must
determine what the claim (the patent) is. Thus, an infringement case has two distinct
13

stages. First, the court finds the proper construction of the patent. Second, the fact
finder considers whether the patent was violated. See Cook Biotech Inc. v. Acell, Inc.,
460 F.3d 1365, 1372 (Fed. Cir. 2006).
The court interprets the words of the claim to determine their meaning and scope.
See Presidio Components, Inc. v. American Tech. Ceramics Corp., 702 F.3d 1351, 1358
(Fed. Cir. 2012) (citing Cybor Corp. v. FAS Techs., Inc., 138 F.3d 1448, 1454 (Fed.
Cir. 1998); Markman, 517 U.S. at 391. “When the parties present a fundamental dispute
regarding the scope of a claim term, it is the court’s duty to resolve it.” 02 Micro
International, Ltd. v. Beyond Innovation Technology Co., 521 F.3d 1351, 1362 (Fed.
Cir. 2008). “There are limits to the court’s duties at the patent claim construction state.
For example, courts should not resolve questions that do not go to claim scope, but
instead go to infringement, or improper attorney argument.” Eon Corp. IP Holdings v.
Silver Spring Networks, 815 F.3d 1314, 1319 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (citations omitted).
However, claim construction is a quasi-factual question, and court is allowed to make
factual findings and resolve fact-based disputes. Teva Pharm. USA, Inc. v. Sandoz, Inc.,
135 S. Ct. 831, 838 (2015). After the claim is construed, the fact finder then “compares
the properly construed claims to the allegedly infringing device.” Presidio Components,
702 F.3d at 1358. Thus, my task is to “define[] the claim with whatever specificity and
precision is warranted by the language of the claim and the evidence bearing on the proper
construction,” and then, “the task of determining whether the construed claim reads on
the accused product is for the finder of fact.” Markman, 517 U.S. 370.
The interpretation and construction of patent claims is a matter of law solely for
the court. Markman, 517 U.S. at 390. “It is the claims that define the metes and bounds
of the patentee’s invention.” Thorner v. Sony Computer Entertainment America, L.L.C.,
669 F.3d 1362, 1367 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (citing Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303,

14

1313 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc)). Claim interpretation proceeds under the guidelines set
forth in Markman. Accordingly:
To ascertain the meaning of claims, we consider three sources: the claims,
the specification, and the prosecution history. Expert testimony, including
evidence of how those skilled in the art would interpret the claims, may
also be used. In construing the claims in this case, all these sources, as
well as extrinsic evidence in the form of [] sales literature, were included
in the record of the trial court proceedings.
Markman, 52 F.3d at 979 (citations and internal quotations omitted).
The construction process begins with the language of the claims. See Renishaw
P.L.C. v. Marposs Societá Per Azioni, 158 F.3d 1243, 1248 (Fed. Cir. 1998). Claim
terms are generally given their plain and ordinary meanings to one of skill in the art when
read in the context of the specification and prosecution history. See Phillips v. AWH
Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1313 (Fed. Cir. 2005). “There are only two exceptions to this
general rule: 1) when a patentee sets out a definition and acts as his own lexicographer,
or 2) when the patentee disavows the full scope of the claim term either in the
specification or during prosecution.” Thorner, 669 F.3d at 1365. The standards for
finding lexicography and disavowal are exacting. Hill-Rom Servs. v. Stryker Corp., 755
F.3d 1367, 1371 (Fed. Cir. 2014). “To act as its own lexicographer, a patentee must
clearly set forth a definition of the disputed claim term other than its plain and ordinary
meaning” and must “clearly express an intent to redefine the term.” Thorner, 669 F.3d
at 1365. Disavowal requires that “the [intrinsic record] makes clear that the invention
does not include a particular feature.” SciMed Life Sys., Inc. v. Advanced Cardiovascular
Sys., Inc., 242 F.3d 1337, 1341 (Fed Cir. 2001).
The ordinary meaning of a claim term is not “the meaning of the term in the
abstract.” Id. at 1321. Instead, “the ‘ordinary meaning’ of a claim term is its meaning
to the ordinary artisan after reading the entire patent. Id.; see also Toro Co. v. White
15

Consol. Indus., Inc., 199 F.3d 1295, 1299 (Fed. Cir. 1999) (“Determining the limits of
patent claim required understanding its terms in the context which they were used by the
inventor, considered by the examiner, and understood in the field of the invention.”);
Anderson v. Int’l Eng’g & Mfg., Inc., 160 F.3d 1345, 1348-49 (Fed. Cir. 1998) (“a word
describing patented technology takes its definition from the context in which it was used
by the inventor.”). “[T]he person of ordinary skill in the art is deemed to read the claim
term not only in the context of the particular claim in which [it] appears, but in the context
of the entire patent, including the specification.” Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1313. While
claim terms are understood in light of the specification, a claim construction must not
import limitations from the specification into the claims. Id. at 1323. The Federal Circuit
views intrinsic evidence as “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).
When the meaning of a claim term is in doubt, the specification is the “single best
guide to the meaning of a disputed term” and is typically dispositive on the issue of claim
construction. Id. “It is a bedrock principle of patent law that the claims of a patent
define the invention to which the patentee is entitled the right to exclude.” Innova/Pure
Water, Inc. v. Safari Water Filtration Systems, Inc., 381 F.3d 1111, 1115-16 (Fed. Cir.
2004). Because claim terms are construed based on the intrinsic evidence to the particular
patent at issue, one court’s construction of a word in one patent is not conclusive, and
may not even be probative, of that word’s meaning in another patent. e.Digital Corp. v.
Futurewei Tech., Inc., 772 F.3d 723, 727 (Fed. Cir. 2014). It is improper to rely on
extrinsic evidence when any ambiguity in the claims can be resolved by reference to the
intrinsic record alone. Id. at 1583.
Determining the ordinary meaning as understood by an ordinary person of skill in
the art is the heart of claim construction. Aylus Networks, Inc. v. Apple Inc., 856 F.3d
16

1353 (Fed. Cir. 2017). In the most desirable situation, the ordinary meaning of a claim’s
language may be apparent to lay judges, and the claim construction may involve little
more than the application of the widely accepted meaning of commonly understood
words. Brown v. 3M, 264 F.3d 1349, 1352 (Fed. Cir. 2001). “A determination that a
claim term ‘needs no construction’ or has the ‘plain and ordinary meaning’ may be
inadequate when a term has more than one ‘ordinary’ meaning or when reliance on a
term’s ‘ordinary’ meaning does not resolve the parties’ dispute.” Id. at 1361. This does
not mean, however, that a court must attempt the impossible task of resolving all
questions of meaning with absolute, unambiguous finality. Eon Corp., 815 F.3d at 1318
(Fed. Cir. 2016). “[A] sound claim construction need not always purge every shred of
ambiguity.” Id. (quoting Acumed LLC v. Stryker Corp., 483 F.3d 800, 806 (Fed. Cir.
2007)); see also Vivid Techs., Inc. v. Am. Science & Eng’g, Inc., 200 F.3d 795, 803
(Fed. Cir. 1999) (“[O]nly those terms need be construed that are in controversy, and
only to the extent necessary to resolve the controversy.”).
“[T]he construction of claims is simply a way of elaborating the normally terse
claim language: in order to understand and explain, but not to change, the scope of the
claims.” Scripps Clinic & Research Foundation v. Genetech, Inc., 927 F.2d 1565, 1580
(Fed. Cir. 1991). Courts have wide latitude in the type of sources that could be used in
construing claim meaning. Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1324 (the court is not “barred from
considering any particular sources or required to analyze sources in any specific
sequence.”). The claims construction process is not confined to the intrinsic record
alone, however extrinsic evidence may not be used “to contradict claim meaning that is
unambiguous in light of the intrinsic evidence.” Id. However, courts must be wary of
extrinsic evidence because “legal error arises when a court relies on extrinsic evidence
that contradicts the intrinsic record.” Profectus Tech. LLC v. Huawei Techs. Co., 823
F.3d 1375, 1379 (Fed. Cir. 2016).
17

The doctrine of claim differentiation creates a presumption that distinct claims,
particularly an independent claim and its dependent claim, have different scopes. World
Class Tech. Corp. v. Ormco Corp., 769 F.3d 1120, 1125 (Fed. Cir. 2014). “‘In the
most specific sense, claim differentiation refers to the presumption that an independent
claim should not be construed as requiring a limitation added by a dependent claim.’”
Enzo Biochem, Inc. v. Applera Corp., 780 F.3d 1149, 1156-57 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (quoting
Curtiss-Wright Flow Control Corp. v. Velan, Inc., 438 F.3d 1374, 1381 (Fed. Cir. 2006)
(citing Nazomi Commc’ns, Inc. v. Arm Holdings, PLC, 403 F.3d 1364, 1370 (Fed. Cir.
2005))).
However, claim differentiation is merely a presumption. CardSoft (assignment
for the Benefit of Creditors), LLC v. VeriFone, Inc., 807 F.3d 1346, 1352 (Fed. Cir.
2015). “It is ‘a rule of thumb that does not trump the clear import of the specification.’”
Id. (quoting Eon-Net LP v. Flagstar Bancorp, 653 F.3d 1314, 1323 (Fed. Cir. 2011);
see also Marine Polymer Techs., Inc. v. HemCon, Inc., 672 F.3d 1350, 1359 (Fed. Cir.
2012) (en banc) (“[C]laim differentiation is not a hard and fast rule and will be overcome
by a contrary construction dictated by the written description or prosecution history.”
(citation and quotation omitted.)). “There is presumed to be a difference in meaning and
scope when different words or phrases are used in separate claims.” Tandon Corp. v.
U.S. Int’l Trade Comm’n, 831 F.2d 1017, 1023 (Fed. Cir. 1987).

18

IV.

ANALYSIS

As noted above, the parties filed a joint claim construction statement, which is
generally intended to narrow the scope of the Markman process:
Term

Agreed Construction

1. An improved trailer for transporting a bulk
seed box, the box having first and second
sidewalls, a bottom, a top, and a flange
extending along the sidewalls adjacent the
bottom of the box, the trailer comprising:

Meridian believes these clauses should be
given their plain and ordinary meaning.
HitchDoc contends that, other than the terms
“perimeter edge” and “bed,” these clauses do
not require construction.

a wheeled bed for supporting a bulk seed
box, the bed having a perimeter edge;
a hopper extending below the bed for
receiving seed from the bulk seed box;
a conveyor operatively connected to the
hopper for unloading seed from the
hopper;
....

2. The improved trailer of claim 1 wherein the Meridian believes this claim should be given
bed has four corners and the guide plates are its plain and ordinary meaning.
located at the corners of the bed.
HitchDoc contends that, other than the terms
“bed” and “guide plates,” this claim does not
require construction.
3. The improved trailer of claim 1 further Meridian believes this claim should be given
comprising lock bars . . . to secure the seed its plain and ordinary meaning.
box to the bed.
HitchDoc contends that, other than the phrases
“lock bars on the bed” and “to overlappingly
engage the flange of the seed box,” this claim
does not require construction.

19

9. The improved trailer of claim 1 wherein the The parties agree that this claim does not
conveyor is an auger including a first inner require construction.
section and a second outer section pivotally
attached to the first section for movement
between transport and discharge positions,
and including a gas cylinder to facilitate
movement of the second section between the
transport and discharge positions.

10. The improved trailer of claim 1 wherein Meridian believes this claim should be given
each guide plate extends outwardly at an its plain and ordinary meaning
obtuse angle from the bed.
HitchDoc contends that, other than the terms
“guide plate” and “bed,” this claim does not
require construction.
11. The improved trailer of claim 1 wherein
the guide plates define an enlarged box
entrance sloping downwardly and inwardly
toward the bed so that the box will
automatically center on the bed when loaded
onto the bed.

Doc. No. 24 at 2-3.

Meridian believes this claim should be given
its plain and ordinary meaning
HitchDoc contends that, other than the terms
“bed” and “guide plate(s),” this claim does not
require construction.

Notwithstanding its repeated statements that particular claims

“should be given [their] plain and ordinary meaning,” Meridian used its brief to provide
specific definitions for various “plain and ordinary” terms.4

Thus, each party has

presented argument regarding the following terms: (1) bed, (2) perimeter edge, (3) guide
plates, (4) inclining upwardly and outwardly, (5) lock bars on the bed and (6) to
overlappingly engage the flange of the seed box. Those terms appear in particular claims
as follows:

In its brief, Meridian states that its “constructions can be left to the words of the claims
themselves, with the ‘plain and ordinary meaning’ as the only construction necessary.” Doc.
No. 37 at 7. Thus, Meridian supports either no construction or its suggested construction.
4

20

Claim Construction Requested

Claim No. Source

Bed

Claims 1, 2, 3, 10, and 11

perimeter edge

Claims 1, 10, and 11

guide plates

Claims 1, 2, 10, and 11

inclining upwardly and outwardly from the
Claim 1
perimeter edge of the bed to facilitate centering
of the box on the bed
lock bars on the bed

Claim 3

to overlappingly engage the flange of the seed
box

Claim 3

I will consider each of these issues below.
A.

Bed

Plaintiff’s Construction of “bed”

The structure that receives and supports the seed
boxes.
A flat elevated bed with a top surface and a side
surface.

Defendant’s Construction of “bed”

1.

The parties’ arguments

Meridian states:
As claim 1 notes, [the bed] is the structure that receives and supports the
bulk seed box. (Id. at col. 4, l. 43.) . . . The bed itself includes many
features, some of which, like the guide plates, are called out as additional
21

features in the claims themselves. As noted in the specification, the “bed
14 of the trailer 10 is provided with a plurality of upwardly and outwardly
extending guide plates 22 that facilitate loading of the box 18 onto the bed
14.” (Id. at col. 2, ll. 52-54.) Claim 1 specifically requires that the bed
include the guide plates, claiming “the bed having guide plates . . . .” (Id.
at claim 1, col. 4, l. 49.) As the purpose of the guide plates is to receive
the seed boxes by aligning or centering the seed box onto the bed, if a
definition of bed beyond the term itself is deemed necessary, defining the
bed as the structure that receives and supports the seed boxes is consistent
with the claims and specification of the ‘551 Patent.
It is also consistent with how dictionaries from around the time of
the invention defined the term. Webster’s Third New International
Dictionary from 2002 (published during the prosecution of the ‘551 Patent)
defines the term bed as “a flat or level surface[,]” “a foundation for a
machine or apparatus: the rigid part of a machine serving to support or
secure[,]” or “the body, box, or supporting frame of a vehicle (as a wagon,
truck, or trailer); sometimes: the floor or bottom of a truck or trailer.”
(Johnson Dec., Ex. 9.) No special definition of “bed” was ever given
during the prosecution of the ‘551 Patent and the inventor never disavowed
the full scope of this commonly understood term. Bed should be given its
plain and ordinary meaning.
Doc. No. 31 at 16-17.
HitchDoc argues for a more expansive construction:
The specification explicitly states that the referenced bed is flat and
elevated: “The trailer 10 includes a flat elevated bed 14 supported by legs
16.” (‘551 Patent col. 2, lns. 38-39 (emphasis added).) Moreover, the
figures depicting the claimed trailer bed all depict a flat elevated bed. (Id.
Figs. 1-3.)
Additionally, the bed must have a top surface and a side surface.
Claim 1’s first limitation claims a trailer including “a wheeled bed for
supporting a bulk seed box, the bed having a perimeter edge.” (‘551 Patent
col. 4, lns. 43-44 (emphasis added).) The specification references the
“perimeter edge of the bed,” but does not expressly define the clause: the
specification states that “the sloped guide plates are positioned around the
perimeter edge of the bed 14,” (id. col. 2, lns. 55-56). Garry Friesen, the
22

‘551 Patent’s inventor, has been deposed. Friesen testified that the bed has
a top surface and a side surface and that the perimeter edge of the bed is
where the bed’s top surface and side surface meet. (Shattuck Aff. Ex. D,
Friesen Dep. 97-101; Shattuck Aff. Ex. E, Dep. Ex. 312 at 2
(MER_0037738).) . . .
Accordingly, if the bed has a “perimeter edge,” and the “perimeter
edge” is where the top surface and the outer side surface of the bed meet,
then the bed must have a top surface and a side surface.
Doc. No. 30 at 6-8. Meridian objects to that construction, stating:
HitchDoc’s proposed construction of the term attempts to read in limitations
from the ‘551 specification – a big claim construction “no-no.” See Anchor
Wall Systems, Inc. v. Rockwood Retaining Walls, Inc., 340 F.3d 1298,
1306 (Fed. Cir. 2003) (“Notwithstanding the fact that the claim language
must be examined in light of the written description, limitations may not be
read into the claims from the written description.”). HitchDoc commits
this fundamental error by suggesting that the term “bed” be construed as a
flat elevated bed with a top surface and a side surface.” (Joint Claim
Construction Statement, ECF No. 24, at 2) (emphasis added). While the
specification does talk about a bed that is flat and a bed that is elevated and
the figures show the bed has top surfaces and side surfaces, there is no need
to read these additional limitations into the claims. HitchDoc’s proposed
construction shows the dangers of incorporating unnecessary limitations
into the claims. For example, here, while the bed is described as a flat and
elevated bed at times, it is also described in the ‘551 Patent’s specification
as a wheeled bed (‘551 Patent, ECF No. 2-1, col. 1, l. 52), a trailer bed
(Id. at col. 3, l. 43), and usually as just a bed. HitchDoc’s unilateral
selection of a specific type of bed for its own purposes ignores the public
notice function served by the broad use of bed throughout the specification
and claims of the ‘551 Patent. Bed should be defined by its plain and
ordinary meaning.
Doc. No. 31 at 20-21. After again citing the patent’s specification, HitchDoc’s rebuttal
is:
Meridian proposes that “bed” be construed as “the structure that receives
and supports the seed boxes.” This proposed construction is broader than
23

the plain and ordinary meaning of “bed” referenced by Meridian in the
Joint Claim Construction Statement. After stating in the Joint Claim
Construction Statement that “bed” did not require construction by the
Court, Meridian stated that “bed” “should have its plain and ordinary
meaning consistent with what is shown in the specification, as the frame
which supports the seed box.” (Doc. 24 at 6.) Now, Meridian is attempting
to expand the meaning of “bed” beyond a frame for supporting a seed box
to any “structure” that receives and supports the seed boxes. By replacing
“bed” with “structure,” Meridian is improperly trying to remove the “bed”
limitation from the ‘551 Patent, which would expand the reach of the patent
claims beyond what was disclosed and claimed in the ‘551 Patent.
Additionally, the construction of “bed” need not include any language about
receiving and supporting the seed boxes, as that language is already
included in the claim, which states that the bed is “for supporting a bulk
seed box.” In short, Meridian’s proposed construction of “bed” adds words
that are already included in the patent, while replacing the word “bed” with
the broader term “structure.”
Doc. No. 35 at 11.
2.

Analysis and Final Construction

“Bed” is one of the simpler terms presented for construction in this case. I agree
with Meridian that it is not a complex term. But, because the parties dispute its meaning,
I will consider the proposed constructions according to the applicable standards and the
available evidence.
As set out above, in constructing a claim there is hierarchy of relevant evidence.
The first and most important evidence is the language of the claim as stated in the patent.
Second, the court looks to intrinsic evidence from the specification (or, in lay terms,
from the rest of the patent document). Third, the court considers the patent prosecution
history. Fourth is all other extrinsic evidence, whether it be deposition testimony, case
law, dictionaries, or other documents. See UUSI, LLC v. United States, 131 Fed. Cl.
244, 256 (2017). The court considers the words in the patent to find their ordinary
24

meaning (unless otherwise defined) through the eyes of an ordinary person skilled in the
art. Id.
At the outset, I reject HitchDoc’s proposed construction of “bed.” By stating that
a “bed” is “a flat elevated bed with a top surface and a side surface,” I would be limiting
the construction beyond what is contained in the claims. Nothing in the claims requires
that the bed be perfectly flat or have a side surface.

As Meridian points out, a

specification should not be used to unnecessarily limit a claim. Phillips, 415 F.3d at
1313. Additionally, the phrase top surface is so obvious that to define it would only
confuse the issue, as by the terms of the claims themselves the bed exists to support the
seed box and has a perimeter edge.
For the same reason, I reject Meridian’s proposed construction. Constructing a
term that is already sufficiently defined would only confuse and complicate this process.
Defining the term bed as the structure that receives and supports the seed boxes when
that is textually explicit in the claim is redundant. It is clear from the terms of the claims
that the bed has a top (as it supports the seed box) a bottom (as the hopper is below it) is
on wheels (wheeled) and has a definable edge.
As noted above, the determination that a claim term “needs no construction” or
has the “plain and ordinary meaning” may be inadequate when a term has more than one
ordinary meaning or when reliance on a term's ordinary meaning does not resolve the
parties' dispute. This does not mean, however, that a court must attempt the impossible
task of resolving all questions of meaning with absolute, unambiguous finality. Eon
Corp. IP Holdings, 815 F.3d at 1318. Obviously, the term “bed” has multiple meanings
(e.g., “its bed time,” “a flower bed,” “let’s put this project to bed” and “the bed of my
truck”).

However, a person skilled in this particular art, in this context, would

understand the type of bed referenced in the claims at issue. Indeed, the term bed, as
used in the ‘551 patent, appears to have no more of a special or unique meaning to a
25

person of ordinary skill in the art than it would to a lay juror. Accordingly, when read
in the context of the entire patent, construing bed to have the plain and ordinary meaning
would have no effect on the meaning, metes, or bounds of the claims in which that term
is used.
In short, nothing in the intrinsic record suggests that this term has any special
meaning to a person of ordinary skill in the art. See Hill-Rom Servs., Inc. v. Stryker
Corp., 755 F.3d 1367, 1371 (Fed. Cir. 2014). I find that the plain and ordinary meaning
of the term bed needs no construction. Additionally, I specifically reject the extrinsic
evidence proffered by HitchDoc (Friesen’s deposition and the dictionary definitions) as
unnecessary evidence regarding this claim. “Bed” will be given its plain and ordinary
meaning.
B.

Perimeter Edge:

Plaintiff’s Construction of “ perimeter edge”

The edge around the perimeter of the bed.

Defendant’s Construction of “perimeter edge”

Where the top surface and the outer side surface
of the bed meet.

1.

The parties’ arguments

Meridian states:
Like “bed” before it, “perimeter edge” is used in the ‘551 Patent claims in
accordance with its plain and ordinary meaning. Confirming that the plain
and ordinary meaning applies, the perimeter edge is not specially defined
in the ‘551 Patent specification and was not defined specially in the ‘551
Patent’s prosecution history. Examples of the perimeter edge are shown
and discussed in the ‘551 Patent and prosecution history. For instance, the
‘551 Patent discusses that the guide plates can be positioned around the
perimeter edge of the bed. (Id. at col. 2, l. 54-56.) This is shown in Figure
26

2 of the ‘551 Patent where the guide plates 22 extend beyond the perimeter
edge of the bed 14. (Id. at fig. 2). . . The perimeter edge was discussed
during the prosecution of the ‘551 Patent application as it was used to
distinguish the ‘551 Patent claims from the prior art. For example, Fitch
failed to teach or suggest the guide plates of the ‘551 Patent because the
guide plates in Fitch were not inclined “outwardly from the perimeter edge
of the bed” as required in the claims.
Doc. No. 31 at 21-22. HitchDoc posits that:
[T]he perimeter edge of the bed is where the top surface and the outer side
surface of the bed meet. “Perimeter” is defined as the outer boundary of
an object. Merriam-Webster’s Online Dictionary, based on print version of
Merriam-Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary, Eleventh Edition (2003)
(“Merriam-Webster”),
http://www.merriamwebster.com/dictionary/perimeter, (“the boundary of a closed plane
figure”) . . . “Edge” is defined as the line where two plane surfaces of an
object
meet.
Merriam-Webster,
http://www.merriamwebster.com/dictionary/edge, (“a line or segment that is the intersection of
two plane faces (as of a pyramid) or of two planes”). . .
Doc. No. 30 at 7. After citing deposition testimony from Friesen, HitchDoc argues:
Meridian states that “perimeter edge” of the bed is not specially
defined in the ‘551 Patent’s specification or prosecution history. (Doc. 281 at 21.) Meridian ignores, however, that claim 1 requires “guide plates
inclining upwardly and outwardly from the perimeter edge of the bed,” and
that the “present invention,” is depicted in Figure 1 of the ‘551 Patent with
guideplates that begin to incline upwardly and outwardly from the point
where the top surface of the bed intersects with the outer side surface of the
bed. (Doc. 30 at 18-19.) Indeed, all depictions of the invention show guide
plates that begin to incline upwardly and outwardly where the top surface
meets the outer side surface of the bed. (Doc. 30 at 19.) If the claimed
invention has guide plates inclining upwardly and outwardly from the
perimeter edge of the bed, and the claimed invention is exclusively depicted
as having guide plates inclining upwardly and outwardly from the point
where the top surface of the bed intersects with the outer side surface of the
bed, then the perimeter edge must be where the top surface and outer side
surface meet. As Meridian acknowledges, a claim must be limited to the
disclosed embodiment unless there is a basis in the written description to
27

construe the claim more broadly. (Doc. 28-1 at 17 (citing Toro, 199 F.3d
at 1301).) . . . Although Meridian contends that “perimeter edge” of the
bed should be given is plain and ordinary meaning, (Doc. 28-1 at 21),
Meridian fails to proffer any dictionary definitions of “perimeter” or
“edge.” . . . Meridian’s proposed construction does not construe or define
the “perimeter edge of the bed” in a meaningful manner; it mostly just
rearranges the order of the words in the clause, to read “the edge around
the perimeter of the bed.” Consequently, Meridian’s proposed construction
does not specifically tell the jury what constitutes the perimeter edge of the
bed or where the perimeter edge is actually located on the bed.
Doc. No. 35 at 12-13.
2.

Analysis and Final Construction

Like “bed,” the “perimeter edge” is a relatively straightforward phrase that needs
no additional construction.

HitchDoc harshly, but correctly, states that Meridian’s

proposed construction (“the edge around the perimeter of the bed”) does little more than
rearrange the words in the claim related to the edge. That said, while HitchDoc’s
proposed construction (“where the top surface and the outer side surface of the bed meet”)
does use different words, it is equally unhelpful. The best way to describe the edge of
something is to use the word edge. The phrase “where the top surface and the outer side
surface of the bed meet” provides a less-clear description of what is being described than
simply saying “the perimeter edge of the bed.” Accordingly, applying the standards set
out above, I find that “perimeter edge” should be given its plain and ordinary meaning. 5

Again, I specifically reject as unnecessary HitchDoc’s proffered extrinsic evidence, including
dictionary definitions and Friesen’s testimony.

5

28

C.

Guide Plates

Plaintiff’s Construction of “guide plates”

The structure that directs the motion of the seed
boxes.
Thin flat pieces of metal.

Defendant’s Construction of “guide plates”

1.

The parties’ arguments

Meridian states:
The claim terms “guide plates” are consistently used as the structure
that directs the motion of the seed boxes. Nothing in the ‘551 Patent defines
a guide plate in a unique way and nothing in the ‘551 Patent or its
prosecution history shows any disavowal of the full scope and meaning of
the terms. This leaves the public on notice that the inventor intended “guide
plates” to have its plain and ordinary meaning. This plain and ordinary
meaning, as a structure that directs the motion of the seed boxes, is
consistent with dictionary definitions at the time. For example, “guide” is
defined in the dictionary as “a contrivance for directing the motion of
something; esp: such a contrivance (as in a tool) having a directing edge,
surface, or channel.” (Johnson Dec., Ex. 10.) “Plate” should have its
plain and ordinary meaning, which is reflected in the dictionary definition
as “a smooth usu. nearly flat and relatively thin piece of metal or other
material.”
Doc. No. 31 at 20. HitchDoc’s proposed construction is considerably different:
The term “guide plates” should be defined consistent with the structure
disclosed in the ‘551 Patent. All depictions of the guide plates in the patent
reveal that the guide plates are thin flat pieces of metal. (‘551 Patent Figs.
1-3.) Moreover, HitchDoc’s construction is consistent with the dictionary
definition of a plate used in this context. Merriam-Webster,
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/plate, (“a smooth flat thin
piece of material”) . . .
Doc. No. 30 at 9. Meridian strongly objects to HitchDoc’s proposed construction:
29

HitchDoc proposes to redefine the term “guide plates” as “thin flat pieces
of metal.” This definition is wholly unnecessary and places extraneous
limitations on the claims. HitchDoc seeks to limit claim 1 to flat pieces of
metal, in what is likely an attempt to provide an avenue to design around
the claimed invention by using some other material, e.g., a hard composite
or some other shape, e.g., a curved or multi-shaped surface. There is no
requirement that the guide plate material be metal or thin. Any suitable
material can be used and any suitable thickness can be used. Notably,
HitchDoc does not cite the ‘551 Patent to support its argument that the guide
plates be metal or thin, due to the fact that ‘551 Patent does not use the
words metal or thin, or require that the guide plates be made of any
particular material or have any particular thickness. Again, this is
analogous to the Hoganas case where the court interpreted a shape
limitation to include restrictions on size. Here, HitchDoc seeks to place
restrictions on the material that the guide plates are made of and the
thickness of the guide plates. Hoganas, 9 F.3d at 950. This is improper.
HitchDoc seeks to further limit the guide plates to require a specific shape,
e.g., that they are flat. There is no reason that one could not use a guide
plate with a slightly curved surface that inclines upwardly and outwardly.
However, such an embodiment would be excluded by HitchDoc’s proposed
construction. . . The words offered by HitchDoc to define the term “guide
plates” are no more than “limitations added wholly apart from any need to
interpret what the patentee meant by particular words or phrases in the
claim” and only serve to convolute the claim language that is clear on its
face. Hoganas, 9 F.3d at 950 (quoting E.I. du Pont, 849 F.2d at 1433).
Meridian continues to maintain that HitchDoc’s proposed construction of
the term “guide plates” is not necessary and that the claim term can simply
be construed as having their plain and ordinary meaning.
Doc. No. 37 at 16-18. HitchDoc’s rebuttal merely repeats its claim that a proper
construction of guide plates is limited to thin pieces of metal. Doc. No. 35.
2.

Analysis and Final Construction

Unlike the prior two sections, the phrase “guide plates” does require a construction
beyond its ordinary meaning. However, of the remaining contested claim constructions,
this is the easiest to resolve. As noted above, Meridian advocates for a definition of
30

guide plates as “the structure(s) that direct the motion of the seed boxes” while HitchDoc
proposes “thin flat pieces of metal.”
I agree with Meridian that HitchDoc’s construction “is wholly unnecessary and
places extraneous limitations on the claims” and that HitchDoc likely seeks to limit claim
1 to flat pieces of metal to exclude guide plates made of an alternate material from the
scope of that claim. Accordingly, for the following reasons, I reject HitchDoc’s proposed
construction. First, and most basically, HitchDoc’s proposed construction does nothing
to explain the phrase needing construction.

As noted above, the purpose of claim

construction is to bring clarity to a term or phrase whose meaning may be in doubt. In
some cases, specification of the material might be a relevant part of a properly constructed
and defined phrase.
However, in this case, defining guide plates as thin flat pieces of metal adds an
extra limitation not contained in the claim (the type of material used), adds additional
ambiguous terms (thin and flat) and neglects to impart a meaningful explanation of the
purpose of the thin flat metal pieces in the context of the patent as a whole. Such a
construction is improper. See E.I. du Pont de Nemours & Co. v. Phillips Petroleum Co.,
849 F.2d 1430, 1433 (Fed. Cir. 1988); Anderson, 160 F.3d at 1348-49. In the context
of the ‘551 patent, thin flat pieces of metal could refer to any number of components,
including the lock bar, slide gate or the lever arm. Accordingly, “thin flat pieces of
metal” is a wholly inadequate construction for guide plates.
Second, even if thin flat piece of metal was otherwise proper, HitchDoc has
jumped over the first three levels of evidence (the claim, the specification and the
prosecution history) to go straight to extrinsic evidence (dictionaries). This is not proper
unless absolutely necessary. In this construction, it is not.
Nor can I agree with Meridian’s proposed construction (“the structure that directs
the motion of the seed boxes”). I agree with HitchDoc that the word “structure” would
31

expand the scope of the claim. However, I disagree with HitchDoc that it is necessary
to resort to extrinsic evidence, such as the dictionary definition of guide or plate. Instead,
the phrase guide plate can be properly constructed by first looking to the claims, and
second to the broader specification.
The description of the invention indicates that guide plates are primarily
responsible for facilitating the loading of the seed box onto the bed. Doc. No. 30-2 at 7.
The description also states that the guide plates function to align the seed boxes onto the
bed. Id. Combined with the claim language cited above, I find that the appropriate
construction of “guide plates’ is “the plates that guide the seed boxes into position onto
the bed.”
D.

Inclining Upwardly and Outwardly

Plaintiff’s Construction of “Inclining
Upwardly and Outwardly from the
Perimeter Edge of the Bed to Facilitate
Centering of the Box on the Bed”
Defendant’s Construction of “Inclining
Upwardly and Outwardly from the
Perimeter Edge of the Bed to Facilitate
Centering of the Box on the Bed”

1.

Deviating from the horizontal plane of the bed
toward a higher position and extending
outside the perimeter edge of the bed.
Sloping upwardly and outwardly in a direction
that is neither vertical nor horizontal, such
slope starting at the point where the top
surface and the outer side surface of the bed
meet.

The parties’ arguments

Meridian states:
[T]hese terms should be left to their plain and ordinary meaning. The plain
and ordinary meaning of these terms, as reflected in dictionary definitions
of the time, are consistent with Meridian’s position that the phrase in its
entirety means deviating from the horizontal plane of the bed toward a
32

higher position and extending outside the perimeter edge of the bed. For
example, “inclining” should have its plain and ordinary meaning, which is
reflected in the dictionary definition as “to deviate from a line, direction,
or course; specif: to deviate from the vertical or horizontal”, such as
deviating from the horizontal plane defined by the perimeter edges of the
bed. (Johnson Dec., Ex. 12.) “Upwardly” should have its plain and
ordinary meaning, which is reflected in the dictionary definition as “toward
a higher position: in a direction from a lower to higher place”, such as a
plate extending toward a higher position from the horizontal plane defined
by the perimeter edges of the bed. (Johnson Dec., Ex. 13.) “Outwardly”
should have its plain and ordinary meaning, which is reflected in the
dictionary definition as “toward the outside: in an outward direction”, such
as a plate extending toward the outside from the horizontal plane defined
by the perimeter edges of the bed. (Johnson Dec., Ex. 14.)
Again, this is consistent with how the Examiner understood the
limitation. During prosecution of the ‘551 Patent, Mr. Friesen’s claim 1
was amended to emphasize the guide plates of his invention went outside of
the bed’s perimeter edge.
Do. No. 31 at 24-25.
HitchDoc argues for a more-limited construction:
The specification and prosecution history confirm that the claimed guide
plates must be sloped; that “sloped” and “inclined” are synonymous; and
that those terms mean to deviate from the horizontal and vertical. The
specification describes and depicts the “present invention” as having sloped
guide plates. More particularly, the specification states that “[a] further
objective of the present invention is the provision of an improved trailer for
bulk seed boxes which includes upwardly and outwardly sloped guide plates
to facilitate loading of the box on the bed.” (‘551 Patent col. 1, lns. 22-25
(emphasis added).) . . . Figure 1 [from the 551 patent], which depicts the
“present invention,” not an embodiment of the invention, shows that the
guide plates 22 are sloped. When a patent describes the features of the
“present invention” as a whole, as opposed to an embodiment of the
invention, the claimed invention is limited to that description. Regents of
the Univ. of Minn. v. AGA Medical, 717 F.3d 929, 936 (Fed. Cir. 2013) .
. . Because the patentee described and depicted the “present invention” as
33

having sloped guide plates, claim 1 must be construed as requiring sloped
guide plates.
Doc. No. 30 at 12-14.
Both parties rely on the prosecution history in attempting to define this term.
Meridian explains the distinction between the ‘551 patent and the Fitch patent discussed
above:
The Examiner attempted to further reject the claims by relying on a
reference that went both upwardly and outwardly–U.S. Patent No.
1,675,701 to Fitch. (Johnson Dec., Ex. 7, 11/01/2014 Examiner’s
Answer, 4.) The Fitch bracket, which the Examiner understood to be
inclining upwardly and outwardly . . . [T]he guide plates of Fitch did not
incline outwardly from the perimeter edge of the bed, as required in claim
1. . . The Examiner argued this guide plate, which he understood to incline
upwardly and outwardly, could be placed to do so from the perimeter edge
of the bed, as required in claim 1, because “it would have merely been a
further design expedience to have so constructed the plates . . . .” (Johnson
Dec., Ex. 8, 6/10/2005 Decision on Appeal, 8.) The Board did not agree
and found that “while Fitch does teach corner brackets having inclined walls
within the perimeter edge of the bed, Fitch does not teach or suggest using
guide plates inclining upwardly and outwardly from the perimeter edge of
the bed to facilitate centering of a container on the bed.” (Id. at 9-10.)
Consistent with the Board’s decision, the Examiner’s understanding, and
the dictionary definitions from the time period, “inclining upwardly and
outwardly from the perimeter edge of the bed” should have its plain and
ordinary meaning – as deviating from the 25 horizontal plane of the bed
toward a higher position and extending outside the perimeter edge of the
bed.
Doc. No. 31 at 26-28. HitchDoc states:
The prosecution history also establishes that the guide plates must be
inclined (sloped). Original claim 1 of the patent application on which the
‘551 Patent was issued claimed “the bed having guide plates extending
upwardly and outwardly to facilitate centering of the box on the bed.”
(Shattuck Aff. Ex. F at 9.) The examiner rejected this claim as anticipated
by Roth, noting that “Roth shows a trailer for bulk seed containers including
34

wheeled bed 12, hopper 64, conveyor 60, and guide plates 52 which extend
‘upwardly and outwardly,’ as broadly claimed.” (Id. Ex. G at 3-4.) To
overcome the prior art cited by the examiner (U.S. Patent No. 6,092,974
to Roth and U.S. Patent No. 5,465,829 to Kruse), Friesen amended claim
1 by replacing “extending” with “inclining” and adding “from the bed”:
“the bed having guide plates extending inclining upwardly and outwardly
from the bed to facilitate centering of the box on the bed.” (Shattuck Aff.
Ex. H at 2.) Friesen explained that this amendment required the claimed
guide plates to be inclined as opposed to extending straight upwardly . . .
The examiner rejected the amended claim as obvious over Roth in view of
Fitch (U.S. Patent No. 1,675,701). (Id. Ex. I at 2.) The examiner noted
that it would have been obvious to combine Roth, which teaches guide
plates extending upwardly, with Fitch, which discloses guide plates
inclining outwardly. (Id.) As a result, Friesen amended the claim to its
current form by inserting the phrase “perimeter edge of the”: “the bed
having guide plates inclining upwardly and outwardly from the perimeter
edge of the bed to facilitate centering of the box on the bed.” (Id. Ex. J at
2.) To overcome the examiner’s rejection, Friesen argued that although the
examiner found that Fitch’s brackets “incline upwardly and outwardly from
the bed,” the Fitch brackets do not incline outwardly from the perimeter
edge of the bed, as now required by claim 1. (Id. at 6.) The examiner
rejected the second amended claim based on obviousness, and Friesen
appealed to the Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences (“Board”). (Id.
Ex. K). On appeal, Friesen argued that claim 1 should be allowed, because
while the prior art taught guide plates extending straight upwardly and guide
plates inclining upwardly and outwardly from the bed, the prior art did not
teach guide plates inclining upwardly and outwardly from the perimeter
edge of the bed. (Id. Ex. K at 4-5; Ex. L at 2.) The Board agreed with
Friesen and found the claim 1 was allowable over the referenced prior art
because the prior art did not specifically teach guide plates “inclining
upwardly from the perimeter edge of the bed.” (Id. Ex. M at 8-11.) Simply
put, claim 1 would not have been allowed if Friesen had not limited the
claim to guide plates inclining, as opposed to extending, upwardly and
outwardly, from the perimeter edge of the bed.
Doc. No. 30 at 14-16. HitchDoc also refers to dictionary definitions:
“Inclined” is defined as “to deviate from a line, direction or course;
specifically: to deviate from the vertical or horizontal,” Merriam-Webster,
35

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/incline . . .
Similarly,
“sloped” is defined as “to lie or fall in a slant: INCLINE,” MerriamWebster, http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/slope . . . In other
words, the dictionary definitions establish that an inclining or sloped object
is one that is neither vertical nor horizontal.
Doc. No 30 at 16-17.
Meridian spends the bulk of its responsive brief expanding its argument regarding
the term inclining upwardly and outwardly.

Specifically, it posits that HitchDoc’s

proposed construction, “requires not only the use of additional, extraneous claim
limitations, but also substitution of easily understood claim terms with other terms.”
Doc. No. 37 at 19. Meridian again emphasizes that, “[t]o support this substitution,
HitchDoc relies on the specification’s description that includes the word “sloped.” (ECF
No. 30, at 12.) This, however, is improper as language from the specification is not to
be read into the claims or substituted with claim terms.” Id. Meridian explains that in
its view, the sole basis for HitchDoc’s proposed construction is to avoid liability on the
infringement claim.

Meridian also objects to the HitchDoc’s suggestion that the

slope/incline starts at the perimeter edge of the bed. Meridian states that slope or incline
extending from the edge of the bed is merely a preferred embodiment, citing Honeywell
Int'l, Inc. v. ITT Indus., Inc., 452 F.3d 1312, 1316 (Fed. Cir. 2006).

Meridian

then returns to its prior argument regarding the prosecution history and states: “To
overcome the rejection Friesen’s claims were amended to add ‘perimeter edge of the’ as
shown in underline: ‘the bed having guide plates inclining upwardly and outwardly from
the perimeter edge of the bed to facilitate centering of the box on the bed.’” Doc. No.
37 at 23 [emphasis in original]. Meridian concludes:
[T]he construction of this limitation at the USPTO found that the upper edge
needed to extend beyond the perimeter edge of the bed, not that the entire
guide plates must start at the point that a top surface and side surface meet
and slope upwardly and outwardly in a direction that is neither horizontal
36

nor vertical as proposed by HitchDoc. Rather, as proposed by Meridian
the guide plates must incline upwardly and outwardly from the perimeter
edge of the bed. Thus, the prosecution history is consistent with Meridian’s
proposed construction that is based on the claim language and not
HitchDoc’s.
Doc. No. 37 at 24.
In response, HitchDoc emphasizes that the specification refers various times to
slopes. Doc. No. 35 at 15-16. HitchDoc then returns to its dictionary definition-based
argument that slope and incline are synonymous. Id. Specifically, HitchDoc states:
Meridian’s proposed construction of “inclining” is contrary to common
sense and the various dictionary definitions cited by the parties, which
establish that “inclining” means sloped; slanted; and to deviate from the
horizontal or vertical. Meridian’s proposed construction recognizes that
“inclining” means to deviate from the horizontal, but conveniently ignores
that “inclining” also means to deviate from the vertical. An inclining object
can be neither horizontal nor vertical: it must be sloped or slanted.
Doc. No. 35 at 17. HitchDoc then repeats its argument that the amendment to the ‘551
patent in response to the Roth and Fitch prior art specifically included the claim that the
guide plates inclined from the perimeter edge to facilitate centering of the seed box, thus
abandoning the previous rejected language that the guide plates extended upward and
outward to facilitate centering of the seed box. HitchDoc states:
Meridian’s proposed construction of “inclining” is not based on the ‘551
Patent, the prosecution history, or any dictionary definition; Meridian’s
construction is based solely on its desire to expand the scope of claim 1 to
read upon the box guides of HitchDoc’s Travis Seed Cart.
Doc. No. 35 at 18. HitchDoc then concludes that the term “from the perimeter edge”
should be constructed to mean starting at that point. HitchDoc grounds that argument in
dictionary definitions and the prosecution history. Id. at 22-23.

37

2.

Analysis and Final Construction

The claim term “guide plates inclining upwardly and outwardly from the perimeter
edge of the bed to facilitate centering of the box on the bed” is the most hotly-contested
of the parties’ disputes. To somewhat simplify the issue, I have created the following
(very crude) diagram of three possible interpretations of the disputed portion of the term:

Under Meridian’s proposed construction (“deviating from the horizontal plane of the bed
toward a higher position and extending outside the perimeter edge of the bed”), it
contends that figures 1, 2 and, even, 3 could be included in the claim. See, e.g., Doc.
No. 37 at 23 (“the prosecution history actually indicates that upwardly and outwardly can
include a straight vertical incline”).

HitchDoc’s proposed construction (“sloping

upwardly and outwardly in a direction that is neither vertical nor horizontal, such slope
starting at the point where the top surface and the outer side surface of the bed meet”)
seems to describe only figure 1.

38

I reject Meridian’s proposed construction.

In its rebuttal brief, Meridian

complains that HitchDoc’s proposed construction “requires not only the use of additional,
extraneous claim limitations, but also substitution of easily understood claim terms with
other terms.”

Doc. No. 37 at 19.

Ironically, that describes Meridian’s proposed

construction. The claim language states, rather plainly, that the guide plates incline
upwardly and outwardly from the perimeter edge of the bed. Meridian’s proposed
construction eliminates the relatively-simple term “incline,” adds a confusing statement
about the horizontal plane of the bed and eliminates the clear statement that incline starts
at the perimeter edge of the bed. Moreover, nowhere in Meridian’s argument, much of
which is quoted above, does it offer a valid rational for its proposed construction. At
best, it recognizes that during prosecution, the Board ultimately distinguished the ‘551
patent because the guide plates in the ‘551 patent extend out beyond the perimeter edge
while those in the Fitch do not. However, this fact, which arises from “third-level”
evidence, is not sufficient to substantiate Meridian’s proposed construction. I find that
its proposed construction has no support in the claim, the broader patent or even in the
prosecution history. As such, it is rejected.
HitchDoc’s proposed construction is significantly better, but not perfect.
HitchDoc starts its proposed construction by replacing “incline” with “slope.” HitchDoc
is correct that the use of “slope” is supported by the repeated use of that word in the
patent. The fact that the specification repeatedly uses the word slope to explain the incline
is relevant to the appropriate construction. I also agree with HitchDoc that the patent
history forecloses Meridian’s proposed construction. Specifically, as detailed above, the
terms “inclining,” “from the bed” and “outwardly from the edge” were all added to
overcome the Roth and Fitch art. Meridian is constrained by those prior concessions,
which were critical to the issuance of the ‘551 patent.

39

I also find this an instance in which the definition of incline, as cited above,
becomes relevant even though it derives from extrinsic evidence. Accordingly, I find
appropriate the definition cited by HitchDoc that incline is a deviation that is neither
vertical nor horizontal, and that slope and incline are synonyms alternately used to define
each other. See Doc. No. 35 at 16. I therefore adopt the first portion of HitchDoc’s
proposed construction, “sloping upwardly and outwardly in a direction that is neither
vertical nor horizontal.” However, I have previously found that the phrase “perimeter
edge” needs no additional construction. Thus, the final construction will be “sloping
upwardly and outwardly in a direction that is neither vertical nor horizontal, from the
perimeter edge of the bed to facilitate centering of the box on the bed.”6
E.

Lock Bars

Plaintiff’s Construction of “lock bars on the
bed.”

The lock bars are positioned near the bed.

Defendant’s Construction of “lock bars on the
bed.”

Lock bars in physical contact with and
supported by the bed.

1.

The parties’ arguments

The parties’ dispute the proper construction of the word “on.” Meridian states:

6

Meridian cites numerous cases to argue that HitchDoc’s proposed construction, which I have
largely adopted, is merely a preferred embodiment and that adopting that construction would
incorporate an unintended limitation into the claim. See, e.g., Honeywell Int'l, Inc. v. ITT
Indus., Inc., 452 F.3d 1312, 1316 (Fed. Cir. 2006), Vapor Point LLC v. Moorhead, 2013 WL
11275459, at *4 (S.D. Tex. Dec. 18, 2013), TomTom, Inc. v. Adolph, 790 F.3d 1315, 1328
(Fed. Cir. 2015), and C.R. Bard, Inc. v. U.S. Surgical Corp., 388 F.3d 858, 863 (Fed. Cir.
2004). I find, however, that the limitation set forth in my construction is contemplated by the
claim. As such, I reject Meridian’s argument.

40

The phrase “lock bars on the bed” was not given a special definition in the
‘551 Patent and no scope was surrendered during the prosecution of the
‘551 Patent. . . These lock bars 36 are secured in place over the top of the
flange of the seed box 18. As noted in the ‘551 Patent, the lock system is
associated with the guide plates 22.” Id. at col. 3, ll. 4-6.) The guide
plates themselves are described and claimed as part of the bed. (Id. at col.
2, ll. 52-54.) (“The bed 14 of the trailer 10 is provided with a plurality of
upwardly and outwardly extending guide plates 22 . . .”); (Id. at claim 1)
(“the bed having guide plates . . . .”) But otherwise, it is clear that the
lock bars themselves are not in the same planar surface as the bed 14 and
do not contact the bed 14, except as the bed includes the guide plates 22.
Meridian’s position that the lock bars are positioned near the bed is
consistent with the plain and ordinary meaning of the word “on,” which is
reflected in the dictionary definition as “a function word to indicate
contiguity or dependence; esp. (2) location closely adjoining something or
location very near some point of a narrowly extended area” or “a function
word to indicate position with regard to a place, direction, or time; esp. (2)
position near a specified part of something.” (Johnson Dec., Ex. 15.) The
lock bars are simply on the bed, or, if any construction is necessary beyond
the plain and ordinary meaning of these terms, the lock bars are positioned
near the bed.
Doc. No. 31 at 28-29. HitchDoc replies:
In support of its construction of “lock bars on the bed,” HitchDoc cites the
first-listed definition of “on” in three separate dictionaries: MerriamWebster, http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/on, (“used as a
function word to indicate position in contact with and supported by the top
surface of”). . . In determining the meaning of “on,” the Court must rely
on the dictionary definition of “on” that is applicable in the context of the
claim language. Felix v. American Honda Co., 562 F.3d 1167, 1178-79
(Fed. Cir. 2009). The dictionary definitions of “on” cited by HitchDoc are
all applicable to “on” as used in claim 3. The definitions cited by Meridian
relate to the use of “on” in contexts unrelated to the disputed claim
language. . .

41

Doc. No. 30 at 25-27. Accordingly, “HitchDoc contends that the language of claim 3
requires the claimed lock bars be in contact with and supported by the bed . . .” Id. at
27.
Meridian disagrees, stating:
HitchDoc proposes that the clause “lock bars on the bed” be redefined to
require that the “lock bars [be] in physical contact with and supported by
the bed.” (ECF No. 30, at 23.) This nonsensical proposed definition adds
unnecessary limitations such as the requirement that the lock bars be in
physical contact with the bed and be supported by the bed. These
limitations are not required by the claim language. Here the word “on” has
been replaced by seven words: “in physical contact with and supported by.”
Again, HitchDoc attempts to add extraneous elements which are not
actually in the claim through interpretation, which is prohibited.
Doc. No. 37 at 24-25. Meridian goes onto make both a logic-based and dictionary-based
argument that “on” has multiple meanings, with only some requiring physical contact
between two objects.

Citing the 551 patent’s diagrams, Meridian also argues that

“HitchDoc’s proposed construction would actually exclude every embodiment shown in
the ’551 patent. Any construction which excludes the preferred embodiment is generally
incorrect.” Id. at 27.
2.

Analysis and Final Construction

Meridian contends that “lock bars on the bed” should be construed to mean “the
lock bars are positioned near the bed,” while HitchDoc argues that the proper
construction is “lock bars in physical contact with and supported by the bed.”
In its open brief, Meridian cited Dr. Seuss and argued that the constructions at
issue in this case are as simple as “I mean what I said and I said what I meant.”7
However, as Judge Bennett has observed, even defining seemingly obvious claims can
7

Doc. No. 31 at 4 (citing Horton Hatches the Egg).

42

become bizarre in a patent construction case. See Serverside Grp. Ltd. v. Tactical 8
Techs., L.L.C., 927 F. Supp. 2d 623, 629 (N.D. Iowa 2013) (comparing claim
construction to an episode of The Big Bang Theory television show in which a character
defines a heart-attack-like event as an event that is like a heart attack). In a similar vein,
both parties make obvious arguments in favor of their preferred construction of “on,”
while at the same time disregarding equally obvious explanations from the opposing
party.
In common usage, “on” has numerous meanings (e.g., “the light is on,” “I am on
vacation,” “the stain is on my shirt,” “the train is on the tracks” and “the decal is on the
truck”). In this case, HitchDoc argues that “on” must mean attached to with direct
physical contact, as in the “stain on the shirt.” Meanwhile, Meridian’s construction is
closer to the decal “on” the truck, as common usage may refer to the decal being “on”
the truck even if it is merely on the truck’s trailer, or on the truck’s bumper, or physically
placed on the truck. Both parties cite to dictionary definitions of “on,” and both sides
establish that their preferred definition of “on” is a viable definition of “on” (attached to
and being contiguous with, respectively).
However, neither party cites to the claim itself, the most important type of
evidence, for the appropriate definition. Likewise, HitchDoc has no argument based in
the specification of the patent that “on” must mean “attached to.” However, as noted
above, Meridian points to the figures included in the patent:
As noted in the ‘551 Patent, the lock system is associated with the guide
plates 22.” Id. at col. 3, ll. 4-6.) The guide plates themselves are described
and claimed as part of the bed. (Id. at col. 2, ll. 52-54.) (“The bed 14 of
the trailer 10 is provided with a plurality of upwardly and outwardly
extending guide plates 22 . . .”); (Id. at claim 1) (“the bed having guide
plates . . . .”) But otherwise, it is clear that the lock bars themselves are
not in the same planar surface as the bed 14 and do not contact the bed 14,
except as the bed includes the guide plates 22.
43

Doc. No. 31 at 28-29.
Additionally, HitchDoc’s preferred construction would include a limitation not
contemplated by the claim – that the lock bar be attached to the bed. For those reasons,
I reject its proposed construction. However, it is obvious that the lockbar must be near
the bed.

Accordingly, I am persuaded that a hybrid definition, incorporating both

alternatives, is what is contemplated by the claim when considered in light of the
specifications and the embodiments that discuss, and seem to show, the lock bar attached
to the guide plates. Accordingly, I find that the phrase “lock bars on the bed” should be
construed as “lock bars attached to or near the bed.”
F.

Overlappingly Engage

Plaintiff’s Construction of “to overlappingly
engage the flange of the seed box.”

The lock bar overlappingly contacts the flange
of the seed box.

Defendant’s Construction of “to overlappingly
engage the flange of the seed box.”

To overlappingly interlock with the flange of
the seed box.

1.

The parties’ arguments

The parties’ final construction dispute also regards the lock bars discussed above.
Meridian argues:
That the lock bars must be positioned near the bed (as bed includes its guide
plates), only makes sense because the purpose of the lock bar is to
overlappingly engage the flange of the seed box to secure the seed box to
the bed. (‘551 Patent, ECF No. 2-1, claim 3.) . . . [I]t appears the issue
between the parties is the definition of the term “engage.” This term should
have its plain and ordinary meaning consistent with how it is used in the
‘551 Patent. For example, the dictionary from the time defines engage as
“to come into contact or interlock with.” (Johnson Dec., Ex. 16.) Of these
two alternate definitions, only the first is consistent with how “engage” is
44

used in the ‘551 Patent. As discussed in the ‘551 Patent, the lock bars
“extend over the perimeter flange 20 of the seed box 18, as seen in FIG. 2,
so as to secure the box 18 to the bed 14.” (‘551 Patent, ECF No. 2-1, col.
3, ll. 38-40.)
However, HitchDoc proposes that the word “engage” be interpreted
according to the second alternative definition of “engage” so as to require
the lock bars to somehow interlock with the seed box. This definition,
while consistent with an alternative definition of “engage” as provided by
dictionaries, is inconsistent with how the lock bars of the ‘551 Patent engage
the seed box. There is never a mention of the lock bars interlocking with
the seed box in the ‘551 Patent. Generally, when a proposed construction
excludes the embodiments of the invention as described and shown in the
specification, that construction is improper. See SynQor, Inc. v. Artesyn
Technologies, Inc., 709 F.3d 1365, 1378-79 (Fed. Cir. 2013) (“A claim
construction that excludes the preferred embodiment is rarely, if ever,
correct and would require highly persuasive evidentiary support.”) (internal
citations omitted.) Thus, the claim terms “to overlappingly engage the
flange of the seed box” should be given their plain and ordinary meaning,
consistent with the ‘551 Patent, and, if additional construction is deemed
necessary, should be construed as “to overlappingly contact the flange of
the seed box.”
Doc. No. 31 at 29-30. HitchDoc replies:
In support of its construction of “to overlappingly engage the flange
of the seed box,” HitchDoc cites two dictionary definitions of “engage”
stating that “engage” means to interlock. Merriam-Webster,
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/engage, (“to come together
and
interlock”);
American
Heritage,
https://ahdictionary.com/word/search.html?q =engage, (“to interlock or
cause to interlock; mesh”). Meridian states that “engage” should have its
plain and ordinary meaning, as reflected in the definition “to come into
contact or interlock with.” (Doc. 24 at 28 (citing Webster’s Third).)
Meridian’s proposed definition is followed by the example of: “the teeth of
one gear wheel engaging those of another to transmit power.” Webster’s
Third, at 751. Moreover, in the context of machinery, Webster’s Third
defines engage “to be or become in gear . . . : interlock and interact.” Id.
Accordingly, the parties agree that the phrase “to overlappingly engage” at
45

least requires the lock bars to come into contact with the flange of the seed
box, but disagree on whether the phrase requires the lock bars to interlock
with the flange. The various definitions cited by the parties establish,
however, that when “engage” is used in the context of two pieces of
machinery coming together, it means to interlock and should be given that
construction in claim 3.
In sum, HitchDoc proposes that claim 3 be construed to state: “The
improved trailer of claim 1 further comprising lock bars in physical contact
with and supported by the bed, to overlappingly interlock with the flange
of the seed box to secure the box to the bed.”
Doc. No. 30 at 27-28. Meridian replies that the word engage is plain on its face and
making it synonymous with “interlock” would unnecessarily narrow the patent. Meridian
also cites another patent, U.S. Patent No. 8,240,494 (the Mohns patent) (Doc. No. 376), which uses the term engage to mean to contact in the context of the exact type of seed
boxes used on the trailers at issue in this case. Doc. No. 37 at 26-27. HitchDoc again
responds by citing to alternate dictionary definitions. Doc. No. 35 at 24.
2.

Analysis and Final Construction

I find that HitchDoc’s proposed construction would again add a limitation not
contemplated by the patent claim. Both parties’ constructions are supported by extrinsic
dictionary definitions. However, nothing about the claim itself supports HitchDoc’s
contention that when the lockbar engages with the flange it means the lockbar interlocks
with the flange. Rather, the patent’s claims and specifications indicate that overlap means
just that, to come down onto, or to have contact with.
Meridian’s proposed construction (“the lock bar overlappingly contacts the flange
of the seed box”) does not limit the claim nor preclude the possibility of interlocking.
Rather, it simply is a way to understand and explain the claim. See Scripps Clinic, 927
F.2d at 1580. Additionally, I agree with Meridian that a construction that precludes the
46

preferred embodiment is rarely correct. See Adams Respiratory Therapeutics, Inc. v.
Perrigo Co., 616 F.3d 1283, 1290 (Fed. Cir. 2010).

In this case, the preferred

embodiment in the patent (Doc. No. 30-2 at 4-5) describes a lockbar that contacts the
flange, not a lockbar that interlocks with the flange. HitchDoc’s interlock language would
preclude an embodiment of mere contact. Because such a construction is rarely correct,
I will not adopt it. Accordingly, I will adopt Meridian’s proposed construction: “The
lock bar overlappingly contacts the flange of the seed box.”
V.

CONCLUSION

For the reasons set forth herein, the court’s final constructions of the disputed
terms and phrases are set out below:

Term/Phrase

Court’s Construction

Bed

Ordinary meaning.

Perimeter Edge

Ordinary meaning.

Guide Plates

The plates that guide the seed boxes into
position onto the bed.

47

Inclining Upwardly and Outwardly from the
Perimeter Edge of the Bed to Facilitate
Centering of the Box on the Bed

Sloping upwardly and outwardly in a
direction that is neither vertical nor
horizontal, from the perimeter edge of the bed
to facilitate centering of the box on the bed.

Lock Bars on the Bed

Lock bars attached to or near the bed.

To Overlappingly Engage the Flange of the
Seed Box

The lock bar overlappingly contacts the flange
of the seed box.

In accordance with the telephonic status conference conducted May 15, 2017, the
parties shall confer about new deadlines and a new trial-ready date. On or before June
16, 2017, the parties shall file a joint report concerning proposed new dates. Upon
review of the parties’ report, I will determine whether another telephonic status
conference is necessary.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED this 9th day of June, 2017.

__________________________
Leonard T. Strand, Chief Judge

48