Electro-Mechanical Corporation v. Power Distribution Products, Inc. et al

Filing 40

OPINION AND ORDER as to claim construction. Signed by Judge James P. Jones on 7/18/12. (sc)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA
ABINGDON DIVISION
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

ELECTRO-MECHANICAL
CORPORATION,
Plaintiff,
v.
POWER DISTRIBUTION
PRODUCTS, INC., ET AL.,
Defendants.

Case No. 1:11CV00071
OPINION AND ORDER
By: James P. Jones
United States District Judge

Brady J. Fulton and Isaac N. Northup, Jr., Northup McConnell & Sizemore,
PLLC, Asheville, North Carolina, for Plaintiff; John D. Luken, Monika J. Hussell
and Olen L. York, III, Dinsmore & Shohl LLP, Cincinnati, Ohio, and Charleston,
West Virginia, and Eric R. Thiessen, McElroy, Hodges, Caldwell & Thiessen,
Abingdon, Virginia, for Defendants.
In this patent infringement action, following a so-called Markman
proceeding, I construe as a matter of law the disputed claims of the subject patent.

I
The patent at the center of this dispute, U.S. Patent No. 7,277,294 (“the ′294
patent”) is entitled “Contactor Draw Out Tray” and owned by the plaintiff, ElectroMechanical Corporation (“EMC”). In its Complaint, EMC claims that Power
Distribution Products, Inc., Becker Mining America, Inc., and SMC Electrical
Products, Inc. (collectively referred to as “defendants”), willfully infringed the

patent and induced infringement by others, all in violation of 35 U.S.C.A. § 271
(West 2001 & West Supp. 2011). Jurisdiction of this court exists pursuant to 28
U.S.C.A. §§ 1331, 1338 (West 2006). The parties have briefed and orally argued
the proper construction of certain claims of the′ 294 patent and the issues are ripe
for decision.

II
The ′ 294 patent sets forth inventions relating to a contactor draw out tray
typically used as part of a power distribution system for longwall underground coal
mining.

Longwall mining involves the extraction of coal contained in large

rectangular blocks. A cutting machine runs back and forth along the coal face,
working under a canopy of movable roof supports. After a section of coal from the
block has been mined and removed, the roof supports are moved closer to the
newly cut face and the roof in the mined out area is allowed to collapse.
Excavation of the coal in the panel can be an essentially continuous
operation, provided that the mining and electrical equipment is fully operational.
A power distribution system for the mining typically receives electricity from an
off-site source such as an electric power utility, and then provides the electricity in
a usable form to the various different pieces of mining equipment. Historically, the

-2-

repair and maintenance of such power distribution systems presented a difficult
task because of the rugged and demanding environments where this equipment is
normally employed.

As the Background of the Invention in the 294 patent
′

explains:
Due to the extensive size of such equipment, it is impractical to
evacuate defective equipment to the surface in order to provide a
clean environment for the technician to effectuate the necessary
repairs. Accordingly, repairs are made on site, thereby providing
further opportunity for the infiltration of contaminants into the system
as the technician must open the various access panels, leaving them
open for extended periods of time. Moreover, the technician is left to
effectuate the repairs in the austere environment.
In such
conditions . . . repairs remain a time consuming, labor intensive
proposition. Similarly, because the equipment remains in an
inoperable condition for an extended period of time, there is a
concomitant loss in productivity as the equipment reliant on the
electrical power is rendered useless.
(′294 patent, col. 1, ll. 27-42.)
It is claimed that the inventions of the ′ 294 patent provide significant
improvements over prior longwall power distribution systems because they allow
for quick repairs to the electrical equipment on site at the mining operation. The
′294 patent includes contactor draw out trays that are removable. Because the
contactor draw out trays are quickly and easily removed, and their components
easily accessible, repairs can be made more rapidly, significantly reducing the
down time of the mining equipment and increasing the overall efficiency of the

-3-

mining operation.
The ′294 patent contains twenty-seven claims, with eleven independent
claims and sixteen dependent claims. The claims describe different aspects of the
contactor draw out tray. The structure itself is made up of a movable frame carried
or supported by a stationary frame, and a disconnect mechanism mounted to the
movable frame that provides selective electrical connectivity through the apparatus
for downstream distribution of electricity to equipment.
Claim 1 is representative and it claims the following invention:
An apparatus for use in an electrical distribution system
comprising in combination:
a. a stationary frame supporting one or more main bus
input terminals and one or more of power output
terminals in spaced relation to each other such that no
electrical connection is made between said main bus
input terminals and said power output terminals;
b. a movable frame slidably carried on said stationary
frame and supporting one or more main bus input
connectors and one or more power output connectors
positioned for mating engagement with said main bus
input terminal and said power supply output terminal
upon selective movement of said movable frame along
said stationary frame; and
c. a disconnect mechanism mounted to said movable
frame and visible from the exterior of the apparatus,
said disconnect mechanism providing selective
electrical connection between said main bus input
connectors and said power output connectors, said
-4-

disconnect mechanism being operable from outside
said apparatus, wherein said disconnect mechanism
selectively operates between an open position and a
closed position such that in said open position said
main bus input terminal connector is electrically
disconnected from said power supply output
connector.
(′294 patent, col. 7, ll. 20-44.) The remaining claims outline various versions of
the structure described in Claim 1.

III
In this opinion, I undertake the first step in any patent infringement case —
to construe the meaning and scope of the patent claims at issue. Markman v.
Westview Instruments, Inc., 52 F.3d 967, 976 (Fed. Cir. 1995) (en banc), aff’d, 517
U.S. 370 (1996). This process, called claim construction, is a matter of law
exclusively for the court. Id. at 979, 984. This is distinct from the question of fact
of whether the accused product infringes on the patent claims, which is the
province of the jury. Id.
In the task of construction, claim terms “are generally given their ordinary
and customary meaning.” Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1312 (Fed. Cir.
2005) (en banc) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted). “[T]he ordinary
and customary meaning of a claim term is the meaning that the term would have to

-5-

a person of ordinary skill in the art in question at the time of the invention, i.e., as
of the effective filing date of the patent application.” Id. at 1313. “The inquiry
into how a person of ordinary skill in the art understands a claim term provides an
objective baseline from which to begin claim interpretation.” Id. “[T]he claims
themselves provide substantial guidance as to the meaning of particular claim
terms.” Id. at 1314. “Other claims of the patent . . . can also be valuable sources
of enlightenment as to the meaning of a claim term.” Id.
The claims must also “be read in view of the specification, of which they are
a part.” Id. at 1315 (citation and internal quotation marks omitted). “[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 the disputed term appears, but in the context of the
entire patent, including the specification.” Id. at 1313. “[T]he specification is
always highly relevant to the claim construction analysis” as it is the “best source
for understanding” the meaning of a disputed term, “informed, as needed, by the
prosecution history.” Id. at 1315 (citations and internal quotation marks omitted).
“The prosecution history is the ‘complete record of all the proceedings
before the Patent and Trademark Office [(the “PTO”)], including any express
representations made by the applicant regarding the scope of the claims.’” Gen.
Creation LLC v. Leapfrog Enters., Inc., 232 F. Supp. 2d 661, 665 (W.D. Va. 2002)

-6-

(quoting Vitronics Corp. v. Conceptronic, Inc., 90 F.3d 1576, 1582 (Fed. Cir.
1996)). “Like the specification, the prosecution history provides evidence of how
the PTO and the inventor understood the patent.” Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1317.
The claims, the specification, and the prosecution history are all forms of
intrinsic evidence the court may rely on during claim construction. The court may
also examine extrinsic evidence, but should do so with caution.

“Extrinsic

evidence consists of all evidence external to the patent and prosecution history,
including expert and inventor testimony, dictionaries, and learned treatises.”
Markman, 52 F.3d at 980. “[W]hile extrinsic evidence can shed useful light on the
relevant art, . . . it is less significant than the intrinsic record in determining the
legally operative meaning of claim language.” Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1317 (citation
and internal quotation marks omitted).
“Extrinsic evidence is to be used for the court’s understanding of the patent,
not for the purpose of varying or contradicting the terms of the claims.” Markman,
52 F.3d at 981.

It “is not for the purpose of clarifying ambiguity in claim

terminology. It is not ambiguity in the document that creates the need for extrinsic
evidence but rather unfamiliarity of the court with the terminology of the art to
which the patent is addressed.” Id. at 986. “[E]xtrinsic evidence cannot add,
subtract, or vary the limitations of the claims.” Id. at 985. Therefore, “[t]he

-7-

district court’s claim construction, enlightened by such extrinsic evidence as may
be helpful, is still based upon the patent and prosecution history.” Id. at 981.
In construing the claim terms, the court is not bound by the proposed
constructions presented and argued by the parties. See Marine Polymer Techs.,
Inc. v. HemCon, Inc., 672 F.3d 1350, 1359 n.4 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (citing Exxon
Chem. Patents, Inc. v. Lubrizol Corp., 64 F.3d 1553, 1555 (Fed. Cir. 1995)).

IV
The specific claim terms in dispute in the 294 patent are “main bus input
′
terminal,” “main bus input connector,” “power output connector,” “power output
terminal,” “disconnect mechanism,” “control panel,” “receiver,” “transmitter,”
“actuator,” and “worm screw.” The following phrases are also in dispute in the
′294 patent: “in spaced relation to each other such that no electrical connection is
made between said main bus input terminals and said power output terminals,”
“mounted to said movable frame,” “operable from outside said apparatus,” “visible
from the exterior of the apparatus,” and “said movable frame is keyed to said
stationary frame.” By applying the applicable principles of claim construction, I
find the following to be the proper construction of the disputed terms.

-8-

A. MAIN BUS INPUT TERMINAL, MAIN BUS INPUT CONNECTOR,
POWER OUTPUT CONNECTOR, AND POWER OUTPUT TERMINAL.
The terms “main bus input terminal,” “main bus input connector,” “power
output connector,” and “power output terminal” are used in numerous claims
throughout the ′294 patent. Specifically, “main bus input terminal” and “power
output terminal” are used in Claims 1, 13, 17, 19-27; “main bus input connector” is
used in Claims 1, 7, 13, 17, and 19-27; and “power output connector” is used in
Claims 1, 2, 7, 13, 17, and 19-27.1 The parties’ proposed constructions of these
four terms are listed below:
Term

Defendants’
Construction
An electrical conductor
that receives electricity,
directly or indirectly, from
a
power
distribution
Main bus input terminal
system, and transmits the
electricity, directly or
indirectly, to the main bus
input connector of the
movable frame
An electrical conductor
that receives electricity,
Main bus input connector
directly or indirectly, from
the main bus input
terminal of the stationary
1

EMC’s Construction

A device which receives
electrical power inputs to
the apparatus

A device which receives
electrical power inputs
from the main bus input
terminal when they are
engaged

In some claims, “power supply output connector” is used as a synonym for
“power output connector,” and “power supply output terminal” is used as a synonym for
“power output terminal.”
-9-

Power output connector

Power output terminal

frame, and transmits the
electricity to another
component of the movable
frame
An electrical conductor
that receives electricity
from another component
of the movable frame, and
transmits the electricity,
directly or indirectly, to
the power output terminal
of the stationary frame
An electrical conductor
that receives electricity,
directly or indirectly, from
the
power
output
connector of the movable
frame, and transmits the
electricity, directly or
indirectly, to a selected
piece of equipment or
feeder line

A device which carries
electrical power to the
power output terminal
when they are engaged

A device which carries
electrical power from the
apparatus

(Defs.’ Opening Claim Constr. Br. 7-8.)
After careful consideration, I find that the terms should be construed as
follows:
Term

Proper Construction

An electrical conductor that receives electricity from a
Main bus input terminal power distribution system, and transmits the electricity
to the main bus input connector of the movable frame
when engaged
An electrical conductor that receives electricity from
Main bus input connector
the main bus input terminal of the stationary frame,
and transmits the electricity to another component of
-10-

Power output connector

Power output terminal

the movable frame when engaged
An electrical conductor that receives electricity from
another component of the movable frame, and
transmits the electricity to the power output terminal of
the stationary frame when engaged
An electrical conductor that receives electricity from
the power output connector of the movable frame, and
transmits the electricity to a selected piece of
equipment or feeder line when engaged

These constructions closely follow the defendants’ proposals, but for the omission
of “directly or indirectly” 2 and the addition of “when engaged” to the conclusion of
each definition.
The given constructions for these terms are consistent with the claim
language and specification of the ′294 patent.

The ′294 patent describes an

electrical pathway that can either be in a closed, conductive condition, or in an
open, disconnected condition. Specifically, the claims and specification portray an
electrical pathway that encompasses (1) connection of a “main bus input terminal,”
which receives electricity from a power distribution system and is located on the
stationary frame, with a “main bus input connector” located on the movable frame;
(2) connection of a “main bus input connector” with a “power output connector”

2

The defendants include the non-limiting phrase “directly or indirectly” in its
proposals in order to allow for the flow of electricity either directly or via some
intervening component, such as cabling. However, I find that inclusion of “directly or
indirectly” in the definition of these four terms is improper, because the phrase does not
appear in the claim language or the specification of the ′294 patent.
-11-

also located on the movable frame; and (3) connection of a “power output
connector” with a “power output terminal,” which is located on the stationary
frame and carries the electricity from the apparatus to a selected piece of electrical
equipment or feeder line. (′294 patent, col. 2, ll. 63-65; col. 3, ll. 1-2; col. 7, ll. 2233.) When the connectors and terminals are mated to establish the electrical
pathway, it is clear that each terminal and connector performs two roles — receives
electricity from an upstream source and transmits the electricity to a downstream
recipient. Thus, the proper construction of each of the four terms is interdependent
upon the other elements in the electrical pathway.
While EMC’s proposed constructions are not untrue, they are noticeably
incomplete. EMC’s constructions only recite one role for each of the elements —
either receiving or transmitting electricity, but not both, which divorces the
physical and electrical interrelationship of the elements.

For example, EMC

suggests that the “main bus input connector” is simply “a device which receives
electrical power inputs from the main bus input terminal.” This ignores the fact
that the “main bus input connector” also carries electricity to the “power output
connector.” Similarly, EMC argues that the “power output connector” is “a device
which carries electrical power to the power output terminal,” which disregards its
additional role of receiving electricity from the “main bus input connector.” The

-12-

defendants’ proposed definitions, on the other hand, provide clear descriptions of
the interrelationship between the elements of the electrical pathway as discussed in
the ′294 patent.
EMC argues that the defendants’ proposed constructions improperly imply
that the four devices are always transmitting electricity, rather than only
transmitting electricity when in a closed, conductive condition. However, EMC’s
suggested definitions also assume that the apparatus is in the closed position.
Otherwise, the electrical current would be interrupted and no electricity would be
“carried” or “received” as recited in EMC’s constructions.

Regardless, the

addition of the clause “when engaged” to the end of each term’s definition clarifies
that electricity is only transmitted when the relevant devices are in mating
engagement, eliminating any confusion over the issue.
B. DISCONNECT MECHANISM.
The term “disconnect mechanism” is used in Claims 1-6, 13, 17, and 19-27.
EMC suggests that the term should be construed as “a mechanical assembly that
can connect and disconnect an electrical circuit.” (EMC’s Opening Br. on Claim
Constr. 16.) The defendants offer a more detailed definition, arguing that the term
means “a collection of components which in one or more combinations can control
whether electricity can or cannot flow, directly or indirectly, from the main bus

-13-

input connector of the movable frame to the power output connector of the
movable frame, one or more of which may indicate whether electricity can or
cannot flow from the main bus input connector to the power output connector, at
least one of such components providing the physical interface through which an
individual user operates the mechanism to control whether electricity can so flow
from the main bus input connector to the power output connector.”

(Defs.’

Opening Claim Constr. Br. 12.)
I find that the term “disconnect mechanism” should be construed as “a
collection of components which in one or more combinations can control whether
electricity can or cannot flow from the main bus input connector of the movable
frame to the power output connector of the movable frame, one or more of which
may indicate whether electricity can or cannot flow from the main bus input
connector to the power output connector.”

This construction follows the

defendants’ proposal, except for the omission of both the “directly or indirectly”
phrases3 and the final limiting clause of the defendants’ definition.
EMC suggests that a more simple construction of “disconnect mechanism”
is appropriate, arguing that the term is well known to those ordinarily skilled in the

3

As previously mentioned, I find that inclusion of “directly or indirectly” is
improper, as the phrase does not appear anywhere in the claim language or the
specification of the ′294 patent.
-14-

art. I disagree. The term “disconnect mechanism” is not specifically defined in the
Authoritative Dictionary of IEEE Standard Terms (“IEEE Dictionary”), a wellregarded reference published by the Institute of Electrical and Electronics
Engineers, and EMC’s proposed definition provides very little guidance as to the
term’s meaning.

EMC’s suggested construction essentially states that a

“disconnect mechanism” is a mechanism that connects and disconnects, offering
no more clarity than provided by the term itself. Because what constitutes a
“disconnect mechanism” will be a crucial element in any upcoming litigation
pertaining to the ′294 patent, it is important to provide a clear, specific definition of
the term.
The defendants’ proposed construction more appropriately summarizes the
description of “disconnect mechanism” given in the ′294 patent. First, the claims
and specification contemplate that a “disconnect mechanism” has several different
components that collectively work in combination to perform its main purpose,
which is to control the selective electrical conductivity between the input and
output connectors. (′294 patent, col. 3, ll. 37-63; col. 7, ll. 34-44.) The inclusion
of the phrase “a collection of components which in one or more combinations can
control whether electricity can or cannot flow from the main bus input connector of
the movable frame to the power output connector of the movable frame” simply

-15-

follows the patent language and identifies that a “disconnect mechanism” is a
collection of components or parts that can control electrical flow in multiple
different ways. This is not controversial, as EMC has conceded that a “disconnect
mechanism” has multiple parts that work together in one or more different
combinations.4
Second, the defendants’ proposed construction that “one or more
[components] of which may indicate whether electricity can or cannot flow from
the main bus input connector to the power output connector,” is also proper. This
phrase is not limiting, as it does not recite a required element of the “disconnect
mechanism” but instead uses the word “may” to clarify that such an indicator is an
optional component but that, when it is present, it is part of the “disconnect
mechanism.”

The specification supports this position, teaching that one

component of the disconnect mechanism may indicate the open or closed status of
the selective electrical connection. (′294 patent, col. 4, ll. 6-9.)
The prosecution history also supports the optional nature of this limitation.
During the prosecution, the Examiner initially rejected many of the claims as
anticipated by another patent, U.S. Patent No. 5,334,808 (the “Bur patent”) entitled

4

EMC acknowledges in its brief that a “disconnect mechanism” has “a part” that is
visible, indicating that there are other “parts” of the “disconnect mechanism.” (EMC’s
Opening Br. on Claim Constr. 19.)
-16-

“Draw-Out Molded Case Circuit Breaker,” which similarly disclosed a “disconnect
mechanism” visible from outside the apparatus. (Defs.’ Opening Claim Constr. Br.
Ex. 5 at 2-3.) However, EMC amended its original Claim 25 (which is now Claim
22) to require visibility of the selective electrical connection itself, successfully
distinguishing the claim from the Bur patent, which only required visibility of a
“mechanical indication” of whether there was an electrical connection. Because
this narrow limitation is only found in Claim 22, the visibility required of the
“disconnect mechanism” in the other asserted claims is not so limited, but instead
requires visibility of a component indicative of such an electrical connection. See,
e.g., Innova/Pure Water, Inc. v. Safari Water Filtration Sys., Inc., 381 F.3d 1111,
1119 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (noting that the use of different words and phrases in the
claims of the same patent implies different meanings). Thus, the defendants’
suggested language clarifies that such an indicator is a component of the
“disconnect mechanism” when it is present.
Finally, the defendants urge the court to define “disconnect mechanism” to
necessarily include a component “providing the physical interface through which
an individual user operates the mechanism to control whether electricity can so
flow from the main bus input connector to the power output connector.” I find that

-17-

inclusion of this phrase is improper because it seeks to import a limitation that is
not applicable to all of the relevant claims.
The defendants attempt to support this added limitation by noting that
Claims 1, 13, 17, 19, 20 and 22 additionally require that the “disconnect
mechanism” be operable from outside the claimed apparatus. Thus, they argue that
some component of the “disconnect mechanism” must necessarily provide an
interface through which an individual user can change the “disconnect mechanism”
between the open and closed positions. However, this argument is flawed. The
term “disconnect mechanism” also appears in Claims 23-27; but, unlike Claims 1,
13, 17, 19, 20, and 22, these claims do not include the limiting language that the
“disconnect mechanism” must be operable from outside the claimed apparatus. As
the Federal Circuit noted in C.R. Bard, Inc. v. M3 Sys., Inc., 157 F.3d 1340, 1362
(Fed. Cir. 1998), it is “improper to import [a] limitation from one claim into
another claim lacking the limitation.”

Therefore, I decline to include this

limitation in the general definition of “disconnect mechanism.”
Accordingly, I find that the term “disconnect mechanism” means “a
collection of components which in one or more combinations can control whether
electricity can or cannot flow from the main bus input connector of the movable
frame to the power output connector of the movable frame, one or more of which

-18-

may indicate whether electricity can or cannot flow from the main bus input
connector to the power output connector.”
C. CONTROL PANEL.
Claims 9, 10, 11, 13, 14, and 15 all include the term “control panel” in the
body of the claims. EMC argues that the term should be construed using its
ordinary meaning as “(1) An assembly of man/machine interface devices. [or] (2)
The part of a console that contains switches, pushbuttons and indicators.” (EMC’s
Opening Br. on Claim Constr. 20-21.) The defendants argue that the term should
be construed as “a panel which has a device capable of controlling the flow of
electricity through the apparatus, which panel may include monitoring displays,
instruments or devices associated with the condition of the apparatus or parameters
for the electricity carried therein, and may further include communication
devices.” (Defs.’ Opening Claim Constr. Br. 23.)
I find that EMC’s definition is indeed the customary and ordinary meaning
of “control panel” ascribed by one ordinarily skilled in the art of electrical
distribution systems. For example, the IEEE Dictionary defines “control panel”
the same as EMC’s proposed construction. IEEE Press, Authoritative Dictionary
of IEEE Standard Terms 235 (7th ed. 2000). Furthermore, I find that there is no
indication in the body of the claims or in the specification that the construction of

-19-

“control panel” should be anything other than its ordinary meaning to those of
ordinary skill in the art.
The defendants’ proposed construction improperly incorporates limitations
found only in specific claims into the general definition of “control panel.” For
example, Claim 13 of the ′294 patent claims “a control panel for monitoring an
electrical condition of said apparatus.” (′294 patent, col. 8, ll. 37-38 (emphasis
added).) In contrast, however, dependent Claim 9 only claims “a control panel
communicating said signal to said contactor.”

(′294 patent, col. 8, ll. 4-5

(emphasis added).) Thus, under the principles of claim differentiation, these are
two different types of “control panels” that must be construed differently. See
Liebel-Flarsheim Co. v. Medrad, Inc., 358 F.3d 898, 910 (Fed. Cir. 2004). Yet, the
defendants add both of these limitations into their proposed construction, urging an
overly narrow definition of “control panel” that requires both monitoring displays
and communication devices.
The defendants argue that their construction is not unduly narrow. They
point out that, while their proposed construction requires the “control panel” to
have a controlling device, it may but need not have indicators such as monitoring
displays or communication devices.

It is true that the defendants’ proposed

construction uses the word “may” when discussing the inclusion of monitoring

-20-

displays or communication devices.

However, as demonstrated in the claim

language previously recited, these possible features are already adequately
described within the relevant claim language. I find that there is no need to repeat
them in the general definition of “control panel,” as such repetition would
inappropriately render the claim language meaningless.

See, e.g., Unique

Concepts, Inc. v. Brown, 939 F.2d 1558, 1563 (Fed. Cir. 1991) (noting generally
that claims are interpreted with an eye toward giving effect to all terms in the
claim).
Given this understanding, I find that the term “control panel” should be
construed using its ordinary meaning as “(1) an assembly of man/machine interface
devices or (2) the part of a console that contains switches, pushbuttons and
indicators.”
D. RECEIVER AND TRANSMITTER.
The terms “receiver” and “transmitter” are included in Claims 12 and 16,
respectively. EMC argues that no construction of these terms is necessary, or in
the alternative, that “receiver” means “a device which receives a signal” and
“transmitter” means “a device which transmits a signal.” (EMC’s Rebuttal Br. on
Claim Constr. 19.) The defendants contend that the terms should be construed as

-21-

“a wireless radio receiver” and “a wireless radio transmitter.” (Defs.’ Opening
Claim Constr. Br. 24.)
I find that the term “receiver” should be construed as “a wireless radio
receiver” and the term “transmitter” should be construed as “a wireless radio
transmitter.” One of ordinary skill in the art would understand that receivers and
transmitters receive and transmit signals. EMC does not dispute this, but instead
argues that the ′294 patent explicitly contemplates a wired connection because it
does not specifically use the words “wireless” or “radio.”
EMC’s argument is incorrect. The claim language makes clear that the
terms “receiver” and “transmitter” are alternatives to hard wired harness structures
and communications. For example, Claim 11 describes an apparatus wherein the
communication means consists of a wire harness attached to a control panel and
electrical distribution system, while Claim 12 describes an apparatus wherein the
communication means is simply a receiver.

(′294 patent, col. 8, ll. 11-15.)

Similarly, Claim 15 describes an apparatus wherein the communication means is a
wire harness, whereas in Claim 16 the communication means is a transmitter.
(′294 patent, col. 8, ll. 43-47.)
The specification language also supports the defendants’ proposed
construction of these terms. The specification states:

-22-

Additionally, controller 52 may communicate its electrical condition
and status to a host power distribution center via electrical, fiber optic
or other suitable cabling. It may also receive and respond to control
signals via such cables. Alternatively, the apparatus may contain a
transmitter and/or receiver to accomplish the same end.
(′294 patent, col. 6, ll. 23-28.)

Thus, it is apparent that a “receiver” and

“transmitter” are provided as wireless alternatives to the hard-wired cabling
described, and that they are to “accomplish the same end” as the hard-wired
cabling, which is to communicate the electrical condition and status to the host
power distribution center. Given this understanding, I find that the defendants’
proposed constructions of the terms “receiver” and “transmitter” are proper.
E. ACTUATOR.
Claims 17 and 18 include the term “actuator” in the body of the claims.
EMC suggests that “actuator” should be construed as its ordinary meaning, “a
mechanical device for moving or controlling something.” (EMC’s Opening Br. on
Claim Constr. 22.) The defendants argue that “actuator” should be construed as “a
mechanism that introduces motion of an object, and may prevent motion.” (Defs.’
Opening Claim Constr. Br. 25.)
While the two proposed constructions are similar, I find that the term
“actuator” should be construed as “a mechanical device for moving or controlling
something.” This construction is identical to the definition of “actuator” found in

-23-

Merriam-Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary 12 (10th ed. 2001), and the defendants
have pointed to no evidence suggesting that the term should have any other than its
plain and ordinary meaning. Furthermore, this construction is consistent with the
way that “actuator” is utilized in the ′294 patent. For example, Claim 17 provides
that the “actuator” can be used to position the movable frame relative to the
stationary frame.

(′294 patent, col. 8, ll. 61-63.)

The specification also

contemplates that the “actuator” is a device for engaging or disengaging the
movable frame relative to the stationary frame. (′294 patent, col. 5, ll. 49-59.)
Thus, consistent with the Webster’s definition, the ′294 patent contemplates that
the “actuator” is a mechanical device that helps move or control the position of the
movable frame with respect to the stationary frame.
Accordingly, I find that the term “actuator” is properly construed as “a
mechanical device for moving or controlling something.” See Lazare Kaplan Int’l,
Inc. v. Photoscribe Techs., Inc., 628 F.3d 1359, 1373 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (“[C]ourts
are free to consult dictionaries and may . . . rely on dictionary definitions when
construing claim terms, so long as the dictionary definition does not contradict any
definition found in or ascertained by a reading of the patent documents.”) (citation
and internal quotation marks omitted).

-24-

F. WORM SCREW.
The term “worm screw” appears only once in the ′294 patent. Claim 17
describes an apparatus comprising, among other things, a movable frame that is
positioned relative to the stationary frame by an actuator, and Claim 18 claims “the
apparatus of [C]laim 17 wherein said actuator comprises a worm screw.” (′294
patent, col. 8, ll. 48-63; col. 9, ll. 3-4.) EMC argues that the term “worm screw”
should be construed using its alleged plain and ordinary meaning as “a fastener that
uses threads to interlock with another component.” (EMC’s Opening Br. on Claim
Constr. 23.) The defendants contend that the term should be construed as “a
fastener traversing the front panel of the movable frame and the front end support
of the stationary frame, the fastener having threads along the entirety of its shaft to
mechanically engage an aperture provided in the front end support of the stationary
frame to actuate advancement or retraction of the movable frame relative to the
stationary frame. (Defs.’ Opening Claim Constr. Br. 26.)
I find that the term “worm screw” means “a fastener traversing the front
panel of the movable frame and the front end support of the stationary frame, the
fastener having threads along its shaft to mechanically engage an aperture provided
in the front end support of the stationary frame to actuate advancement or
retraction of the movable frame relative to the stationary frame.” This construction

-25-

essentially mirrors the defendants’ proposal, except it does not require that the
fastener have threads along the entirety of its shaft.
EMC argues that there is no need to construe the term “worm screw” aside
from using the alleged ordinary meaning of “screw.” It contends that a “worm
screw” is merely a “screw,” and that one ordinarily skilled in the art will
understand the term to mean “a fastener that uses threads to interlock with another
component.” However, this construction is flawed for two main reasons. First,
EMC’s construction ignores the established canon of claim construction stating
that courts interpret claims with an eye toward giving effect to all of the terms in
the claim. See Bicon, Inc. v. Straumann Co., 441 F.3d 945, 950 (Fed. Cir. 2006).
EMC’s proposed construction renders the word “worm” superfluous and eliminates
any meaning that it imparts upon the general structure “screw.” If EMC had
intended to broadly claim any “screw,” it could have done so by not reciting the
modifier “worm.” See, e.g., In re Gabapentin Patent Litig., 503 F.3d 1254, 1263
(Fed. Cir. 2007). Instead, EMC used the modifier “worm,” which strongly implies
that the term “worm screw” is more than just a “screw.”
Second, the term “worm screw” requires a more detailed construction
because EMC’s particular use of this term is different than its ordinary
understanding. Common usage of the term “worm screw” is as one part of a worm

-26-

gear.

Houghton Mifflin Co., American Heritage Dictionary of the English

Language 1475 (4th ed. 2009). However, neither the claims nor the specification
of the ′294 patent identify an associated worm gear with the claimed “worm
screw.” By departing from the usual understanding of “worm screw,” the patentee
has used the term in an exceptional way and thus its ordinary meaning is not
invoked.

Therefore, I must look to the claims and specification to properly

construe the term.
In the only description addressing the “worm screw,” the specification
describes the “worm screw” by its function, which is to open or close the movable
frame relative to the stationary frame. Specifically, the specification states:
. . . the apparatus may be provided with an actuator 56, such as a
worm screw, operatively coupled between front panel 50 and
stationary frame 20 such that actuator 56 will disengage movable
frame 30 from stationary frame 20. Actuator 56 may also be utilized
in a reverse direction to draw the movable frame 30 into stationary
frame 20 to securely close the apparatus and ensure full engagement
of terminals 24 and 25 with connectors 34 and 35.
(′294 patent, col. 5, ll. 49-58.) This description, coupled with Figure 7 in the ′294
patent, makes it clear that the fastener must traverse the movable frame and the
stationary frame in order to effectuate positioning of the movable frame relative to
the stationary frame. Thus, the section of defendants’ proposed construction that
describes the “worm screw” as “a fastener traversing the front panel of the

-27-

movable frame and the front end support of the stationary frame, the fastener
having threads along . . . its shaft to mechanically engage an aperture provided in
the front end support of the stationary frame to actuate advancement or retraction
of the movable frame relative to the stationary frame,” is consistent with the term
as used in the ′294 patent’s claims and specification.
The defendants also argue that a “worm screw” cannot open and close the
movable frame relative to the stationary frame unless it has threads along the
entirety of its shaft. While it is true that Figure 7 shows an elongated shaft with
threads along the visible section of the shaft, it is impossible to know whether the
part of the shaft not seen in the illustration also has threads. (′294 patent, fig. 7.)
Furthermore, the actual claim language and the specification say nothing about the
fastener having threads along the entirety of its shaft. A “worm screw” could still
properly perform its function of opening and closing the movable frame if only
part of its shaft was threaded. Accordingly, I decline to include this limitation in
the term’s construction.
G. IN SPACED RELATION TO EACH OTHER SUCH THAT NO ELECTRICAL
CONNECTION IS MADE BETWEEN SAID MAIN BUS INPUT TERMINALS
AND SAID POWER OUTPUT TERMINALS.

Claims 1, 13, 17, and 19 of the ′294 patent include the phrase “in spaced
relation to each other such that no electrical connection is made between said main

-28-

bus input terminals and said power output terminals.”

EMC argues that no

construction is necessary or, in the alternative, that the phrase should be construed
as “the main bus input terminals and power output terminals are spaced such that
there is no electrical connection made between them.” (EMC’s Opening Br. on
Claim Constr. 12.) Originally, the defendants argued that the phrase should be
construed as “where each main bus input terminal is sufficiently far away from
every power output terminal so that electrons do not flow between the main bus
input terminal and any power output terminal (other than through the connectors of
the movable frame); and each power output terminal is sufficiently far away from
every main bus input terminal so that electrons do not flow between the power
output terminal and every main bus input terminal (other than through the
connectors of the movable frame).”

(Defs.’ Opening Claim Constr. Br. 11.)

However, at oral argument, the defendants offered an amendment to the plaintiff’s
proposed construction, contending that the phrase should be construed as “the main
bus input terminals and power output terminals are spaced such that there is no
electrical connection made between them other than through the connectors of the
movable frame.” EMC indicated that it was in agreement with the defendants’
proposed amendment to its construction.

-29-

I will adopt the agreed upon construction and find that “in spaced relation to
each other such that no electrical connection is made between said main bus input
terminals and said power output terminals” means “the main bus input terminals
and power output terminals are spaced such that there is no electrical connection
made between them other than through the connectors of the movable frame.”
This definition simply adds the phrase “other than through the connectors of the
movable frame” to EMC’s proposed construction. This is consistent with the
specification, which states:
Terminals 24 and 25 are supported in spaced relation to each other
such that no electrical connection is made between main bus input
terminals 24 and power supply output terminals 25 unless an electrical
connection is made through the other electrical components of the
apparatus. That is, terminals 24 and 25 are mounted to the apparatus
such that they are electrically isolated from each other and the
apparatus.
(′294 patent, col. 3, ll. 2-9.) Thus, I find that the agreed-upon construction is a
reasonable one.
H. MOUNTED TO SAID MOVABLE FRAME.
The phrase “mounted to said movable frame” is used in Claims 1, 13, 17, 19,
20, and 22-27 of the ′294 patent as an additional requirement pertaining to the
“disconnect mechanism.”

EMC argues that there is no need to construe this

phrase. (EMC’s Opening Br. on Claim Constr. 18.) On the other hand, the

-30-

defendants contend that “mounted to said movable frame” should be construed as
“where the components of the disconnect mechanism are all affixed to and
supported by the structure of the movable frame, directly or through one or more
other components of the disconnect mechanism.” (Defs.’ Opening Claim Constr.
Br. 17.)
I agree with the plaintiff that the phrase “mounted to said movable frame”
does not need construction. The phrase is easily understandable to one ordinarily
skilled in the art. Moreover, there is no indication in the body of the claims or in
the specification that the construction of “mounted to said movable frame” should
be anything other than its plain and ordinary meaning.
The defendants argue that “mounted to said movable frame” should be
understood to require that the entire disconnect mechanism, not just some of its
components, must be directly or indirectly mounted to (or affixed to) the movable
frame. However, this interpretation attempts to impose a narrowing limitation that
is unsupported by the claim language or the specification.

Contrary to the

defendants’ assertion, there is nothing in the ′294 patent explicitly suggesting that
“all” of the components of the disconnect mechanism must be affixed to the
movable frame. 5

5

The ′294 patent simply requires “a disconnect mechanism

EMC also argues that one embodiment in the specification teaches that at least
-31-

mounted to said movable frame.” (′294 patent, col. 7, ll. 34-35.) If EMC wanted
to limit its invention to one in which “all” of the components of the disconnect
mechanism were mounted to the movable frame, it could have written the claims in
such a manner. Because EMC did not limit its invention in this fashion, the court
should not rewrite the claims in the narrow manner suggested by the defendants.
See In re Shoner, 341 F. App’x 642, 646 (Fed. Cir. 2009) (unpublished) (noting
that claim terms should be given their broadest reasonable interpretation consistent
with the specification).
Accordingly, I find that “mounted to said movable frame” means just that —
“mounted to said movable frame” — and no additional construction is necessary.
I. OPERABLE FROM OUTSIDE SAID APPARATUS.
The phrase “operable from outside said apparatus” is used in Claims 1, 13,
17, 19, 20, and 22 of the ′294 patent as an additional requirement regarding the
“disconnect mechanism.” 6 EMC contends that no construction is necessary or, in
the alternative, that the phrase means “the disconnect mechanism can be operated

one component of the disconnect mechanism, the mechanical interlock, is mounted to the
stationary frame rather than to the movable frame, directly contradicting the defendants’
proposed construction. This argument is incorrect. While the specification states that the
mechanical interlock engages the stationary frame, it is clear that the mechanical
interlock is still indirectly mounted to the movable frame. (′294 patent, col. 4, ll. 37-45.)
6

The term “operable from external said apparatus,” is used as a synonym for
“operable from outside said apparatus” in Claim 22.
-32-

or used from the outside of the apparatus.” (EMC’s Opening Br. on Claim Constr.
19.) The defendants argue that the phrase should be construed as “capable of being
controlled by an individual user engaging the component of the disconnect
mechanism that provides the physical interface to control whether electricity can
flow from the main bus input connector to the power output connector, said
component being accessible on the exterior surface of the apparatus.” (Defs.’
Opening Claim Constr. Br. 21.)
I find that the phrase “operable from outside said apparatus” does not need
to be construed. As stated by the Federal Circuit in Chef Am., Inc. v. LambWeston, Inc., 358 F.3d 1371, 1373 (Fed. Cir. 2004), “[t]hese are ordinary, simple
English words whose meaning is clear and unquestionable.” There is no indication
that their use in this particular context changes their meaning. They mean what
they say — the disconnect mechanism can be operated or used from the outside of
the apparatus.
The defendants argue that a more descriptive definition is necessary in order
to explain precisely how the disconnect mechanism is “operable from outside said
apparatus.” In particular, the defendants contend that this language means that the
component of the disconnect mechanism that controls the flow of electricity must
be “accessible on the exterior surface of the apparatus.” However, this limitation

-33-

appears nowhere in the claim language of the ′294 patent. Instead, the defendants
attempt to import an embodiment from the specification into the claim. The
specification describes a disconnect mechanism that encompasses a lever on the
surface of the movable frame. The defendants argue that, because this particular
embodiment is shown as “accessible on the exterior surface of the apparatus,” then
all disconnect mechanisms must be limited in this respect.

However, the

defendants have pointed to nothing in the specification that suggests that EMC’s
invention is limited to this single embodiment. Thus, the defendants’ proposed
construction must be rejected. See JVW Enters., Inc. v. Interact Accessories, Inc.,
424 F.3d 1324, 1335 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (noting that a patent-construing court will
not import limitations into claims from embodiments appearing only in the written
description, even when a specification describes only a single embodiment, unless
the specification makes clear that the patentee intends for the claims and the
embodiments in the specification to be strictly coextensive).
J. VISIBLE FROM THE EXTERIOR OF THE APPARATUS.
Claims 1, 13, 17, 19, and 20 utilize the phrase “visible from the exterior of
the apparatus.” EMC argues that the phrase should be construed as “where at least
one component of the disconnect mechanism inside the movable frame indicates
whether an electrical connection can be made or cannot [be] made between the

-34-

main bus input connector and the power output connector, and such component is
observable from the exterior of the apparatus.” (EMC’s Post-Hr’g Br. Concerning
Additional Legal Auths. 1.)

The defendants agree with EMC’s proposed

construction, but for the restriction that the visible component of the disconnect
mechanism must be “inside the movable frame.” (Defs.’ Resp. to Pl.’s Post-Hr’g
Claim Constr. Br. 2-3.)
I find that “visible from the exterior of the apparatus” should be construed as
“where at least one component of the disconnect mechanism indicates whether an
electrical connection can be made or cannot be made between the main bus input
connector and the power output connector, and such component is observable from
the exterior of the apparatus.” This construction allows the visible component of
the disconnect mechanism to be positioned either on the inside or the outside of the
movable frame, as argued by the defendants.
EMC contends that the restrictive language “inside the movable frame” is
necessary in order to preserve the validity of the affected claims.

However,

construction to preserve validity is a last resort, not a first principle. See MBO
Labs., Inc. v. Becton, Dickinson & Co., 474 F.3d 1323, 1332 (Fed. Cir. 2007). The
doctrine of construing claims to preserve their validity is applicable only if a claim
is still ambiguous after all the available tools of claim construction have been

-35-

applied. Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1327; see also Seachange Int’l, Inc. v. C-COR, Inc.,
413 F.3d 1361, 1377 (Fed. Cir. 2005). The phrase at issue is not ambiguous.
Thus, it can be construed without the need to consider whether one possible
construction would render the claim invalid while the other would not.
The claim language, specification, and prosecution history all clearly
illustrate that “visible from the exterior of the apparatus” does not require the
visible component of the disconnect mechanism to be located “inside the movable
frame.”

For instance, the specification explicitly discloses a disconnect

mechanism in which the component that indicates the connectivity status is visible
from the exterior of the apparatus precisely because it is outside the movable
frame.

(′294 patent, col. 3, ll. 64–col. 4, ll. 6; Figs. 1-4.)

Particularly, the

specification describes a disconnect mechanism that comprises an actuating lever
coupled to a switch gear conducting arm to operate the arm between a closed,
conductive position and an open, disconnected position.

(Id.)

When the

disconnect mechanism is closed, the actuating lever is in an “up” position, and
when the disconnect mechanism is open, the actuating lever is in a “down”
position. The lever is visible from the exterior of the apparatus, indicative of the
electrical status of the apparatus, and located on the outside of the movable frame.
EMC’s proposed construction would improperly exclude this preferred

-36-

embodiment. See AstraZeneca LP v. Apotex, Inc., 633 F.3d 1042, 1051 (Fed. Cir.
2010) (noting that claims should generally not be interpreted in a manner that
excludes embodiments disclosed in the specification).
Moreover, the prosecution history supports the defendants’ construction. As
originally filed, Claim 1 recited a disconnect mechanism “visible from the exterior
of the apparatus.” As previously discussed, during prosecution, the Examiner
initially rejected all independent claims, including Claim 1, as anticipated by the
Bur patent.7 (Defs.’ Opening Claim Constr. Br. Ex. 5 at 2-3.) The Examiner stated
that the Bur patent similarly disclosed an apparatus having “a disconnect
mechanism 16 mounted to said movable frame and visible from the exterior of the
apparatus . . . .” (Id.) Thus, the disconnect mechanism in Bur necessarily satisfied
the visibility element recited in Claim 1 of the ′294 patent.

However, the

illustrations in the patent clearly show that the disconnect mechanism in Bur was
physically outside the movable frame. (Defs.’ Opening Claim Constr. Br. Ex. 4,
Figs. 1, 2, 10.) Accordingly, the Examiner understood the limitation “visible from
the exterior of the apparatus” in Claim 1 of the ′294 patent to include a mechanical
indication that is located outside of the movable frame.

7

EMC ultimately added other limitations to Claim 1 in order to overcome Bur.
However, the added limitations in Claim 1 are unrelated to the visibility requirement.
-37-

Therefore, I find that “visible from the exterior of the apparatus” means
“where at least one component of the disconnect mechanism indicates whether an
electrical connection can be made or cannot be made between the main bus input
connector and the power output connector, and such component is observable from
the exterior of the apparatus.”
K. SAID MOVABLE FRAME IS KEYED TO SAID STATIONARY FRAME.
The phrase “said movable frame is keyed to said stationary frame” appears
in Claim 19 of the ′294 patent. Claim 19 states:
An apparatus for use in an electrical distribution system comprising in
combination:
...
(b) a movable frame slidably carried on said stationary frame and
supporting one or more main bus input connectors and one or more
power output connectors positioned for mating engagement with said
main bus input terminal and said power supply output terminal upon
selective movement of said movable frame along said stationary
frame, wherein said movable frame is keyed to said stationary frame
such that said movable frame is mountable to said stationary frame
only when a set of electrical components mounted to said movable
frame are compatible with a set of desired operating parameters for
said electrical distribution system . . . .
(′294 patent, col. 9, ll. 5-23 (emphasis added).) EMC contends that the phrase does
not need construction or, in the alternative, that the term “keyed” should be
construed to mean “coordinated” or “harmonized.” (EMC’s Opening Br. on Claim

-38-

Constr. 24.) The defendants argue that the phrase “said movable frame is keyed to
said stationary frame” should be construed as “the movable frame and stationary
frame have corresponding elements such that, when the connectors of the movable
frame are matingly engaged with the terminals of the stationary frame, the physical
contact between such corresponding elements generates an electrical signal that is
used by the apparatus to both (a) confirm that the movable frame is matingly
engaged with the stationary frame, and (b) discern whether or not the movable
frame has a set of electrical components compatible with the stationary frame.”
(Defs.’ Opening Claim Constr. Br. 27.)
I find that the phrase “said movable frame is keyed to said stationary frame”
does not need to be construed. The defendants argue that additional construction is
necessary to clarify that “keying” requires both physical mating and compatibility
of the electrical components of the movable frame with the power distribution
system. For instance, the specification plainly contemplates that the movable
frame is not “keyed” to the stationary frame unless it both physically fits into the
stationary frame and has a set of electrical components that are compatible with
those of the stationary frame and, in turn, with the desired operating parameters of
the power distribution system. (′294 patent, col. 6, ll. 41-53.) The defendants
contend that without further construction, the phrase “said movable frame is keyed

-39-

to said stationary frame” insinuates that only physical mating of the movable frame
with the stationary frame, regardless of any differing electrical attributes, is
required for the two frames to be “keyed.”
However, from reading the phrase in the context of the surrounding claim
language, it is clear to one ordinarily skilled in the art that the movable frame is not
“keyed” to the stationary frame unless it has a set of compatible electrical
components. The relevant claim language specifically states that the movable
frame is “keyed” to the stationary frame “only when a set of electrical components
mounted to said movable frame are compatible with a set of desired operating
parameters for said electrical distribution system.” (′294 patent, col. 9, ll. 19-23.)
The defendants attempt to incorporate these later parts of the claim language in
their proposed construction, yet this inappropriately renders the claim language
repetitive and meaningless. See, e.g., Unique Concepts, Inc., 939 F.2d at 1563.
Accordingly, I find that no construction is necessary of the phrase “said
movable frame is keyed to said stationary frame.”

V
For the foregoing reasons, it is ORDERED that the disputed terms of the
′294 patent are properly construed as follows:

-40-

1. “Main bus input terminal” means “an electrical conductor that receives
electricity from a power distribution system, and transmits the electricity to
the main bus input connector of the movable frame when engaged”;
2. “Main bus input connector” means “an electrical conductor that receives
electricity from the main bus input terminal of the stationary frame, and
transmits the electricity to another component of the movable frame when
engaged”;
3. “Power output connector” means “an electrical conductor that receives
electricity from another component of the movable frame, and transmits the
electricity to the power output terminal of the stationary frame when
engaged”;
4. “Power output terminal” means “an electrical conductor that receives
electricity from the power output connector of the movable frame, and
transmits the electricity to a selected piece of equipment or feeder line when
engaged”;
5. “Disconnect mechanism” means “a collection of components which in one
or more combinations can control whether electricity can or cannot flow
from the main bus input connector of the movable frame to the power output
connector of the movable frame, one or more of which may indicate whether
electricity can or cannot flow from the main bus input connector to the
power output connector”;
6. “Control panel” means “(1) an assembly of man/machine interface devices
or (2) the part of a console that contains switches, pushbuttons, and
indicators”;
7. “Receiver” means “a wireless radio receiver” and “transmitter” means “a
wireless radio transmitter”;
8. “Actuator” means “a mechanical device for moving or controlling
something”;
9. “Worm screw” means “a fastener traversing the front panel of the movable
frame and the front end support of the stationary frame, the fastener having
-41-

threads along its shaft to mechanically engage an aperture provided in the
front end support of the stationary frame to actuate advancement or
retraction of the movable frame relative to the stationary frame”;
10.“In spaced relation to each other such that no electrical connection is made
between said main bus input terminals and said power output terminals”
means “the main bus input terminals and power output terminals are spaced
such that there is no electrical connection made between them other than
through the connectors of the movable frame”;
11.“Mounted to said movable frame” means “mounted to said movable frame”;
12.“Operable from outside said apparatus” means “operable from outside said
apparatus”;
13.“Visible from the exterior of the apparatus” means “where at least one
component of the disconnect mechanism indicates whether an electrical
connection can be made or cannot be made between the main bus input
connector and the power output connector, and such component is
observable from the exterior of the apparatus”; and
14.“Said movable frame is keyed to said stationary frame” means “said
movable frame is keyed to said stationary frame.” 8
ENTER: July 18, 2012
/s/ James P. Jones
United States District Judge
8

Prior to oral argument, the parties agreed upon proposed constructions for the
claim terms “contactor,” “desired operating parameters,” and “selective electrical
connection visible from outside said apparatus.” I find that the parties’ agreed-upon
constructions are reasonable. Thus, these terms are properly construed as follows:
“contactor” means “a device for repeatedly establishing and interrupting an electrical
power current,” “desired operating parameters” means “a set of properties whose values
determine the characteristics or behavior of something,” and “selective electrical
connection visible from outside said apparatus” means “at least one component of the
disconnect mechanism is visible from the exterior of the apparatus so that an individual
can observe physical separation of the conductors.”
-42-