CCS Fitness, Inc. v. Brunswick Corporation, 288 F.3d 1359 (2002) Notes
elliptical fitness device, appeals court
District court said CCS didnt specify reciprocating "member" as having more than one straight component. thus Life Fitness did not infringe on patent.
said not mentioned in claims, and drawings only show single member
CCS says the word member covers curved thing that Life was using, Life says term is too vague, can't claim curved member
- 2-step analysis
- 1. determine scope of disputed term
- 2. compare claim to actual device
to interpret claim:
- intrinsic, extrinsic evidence
word can lose its ordinary meaning if
- patentee makes own definition stated
- embodiment distinguishes term
- patentees term deprives claimof clarity
appeals court says DC misinterpreted the term reciprocating member.
it can contain the curved member based on dictionary definition, intrinsic evidence