Free Claim Construction Answering Brief - District Court of Delaware - Delaware

Case 1:06-cv-00762-JJF

Document 32

Filed 10/05/2007

Page 1 of 20

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE LIPPERT COMPONENTS, INC., Plaintiff, v. DEXTER CHASSIS GROUP, INC., Defendant. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

C.A. No. 1:06cv762 JJF

DEXTER CHASSIS GROUP, INC.'S RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFF'S OPENING CLAIM CONSTRUCTION BRIEF

Case 1:06-cv-00762-JJF

Document 32

Filed 10/05/2007

Page 2 of 20

TABLE OF CONTENTS I. II. INTRODUCTION ................................................................................ 1 DISCUSSION....................................................................................... 2 A. Lippert Improperly Relied on Everything But the Specification. .. 2 B. Lippert's Late Discussion of the Specification is Misleading........ 7 C. Discussion of Lippert's Use of Other Patents................................. 8 D. Discussion of Lippert's Submission of Dexter's Drawings ......... 10 E. "Moveable Member" is a Means-Plus Function Limitation......... 11 F. Lippert's Description of "One of Ordinary Skill in the Art" is Incorrect and Unsubstantiated ....................................................... 14 III. CONCLUSION................................................................................... 14

i

Case 1:06-cv-00762-JJF

Document 32

Filed 10/05/2007

Page 3 of 20

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
Federal Cases Alumed LLC v. Stryker Corp., 483 F.3d 800, 809 (Fed. Cir. 2007)........................................................................... 3 Advanced Display systems, Inc. v. Kent State University, 212 F.3d 1272, (Fed. Cir. 2000)................................................................................ 10 Al-Site Corp. v. VSI International, Inc., 174 F.3d 1308, 1318 (Fed. Cir. 1999)....................................................................... 13 Atmel Corp. v. Information Storage Devices, Inc., 198 F.3d 1374, 1381 (Fed. Cir. 1999)....................................................................... 10 Atofina v. Great Lakes Chem. Corp., 441 F.3d 991, 996 (Fed. Cir. 2006)........................................................................... 5 CCS Fitness, Inc. v. Brunswick Corp., 288 F.3d 1359 (Fed. Cir. 2002)................................................................................. 3, 13 Depuy Spine, Inc. v. Medtronic Sofamore Danek, Inc., 469 F. 3d 1005, 1023 (Fed. Cir. 2006)...................................................................... 13 Free Motion Fitness, Inc. v. Cybex Int'lnc., 423 F.3d 1343, 1348-49 (Fed. Cir. 2005) ................................................................. 5 Graham v. John Deere, 383 U.S. 1, 17 (1966)................................................................................................ 14 Honeywell Int'l, Inc. v. ITT Indus., 452 F.3d 1312, 1318-19 (Fed. Cir. 2006) ................................................................. 6 In re Johnson, 435 F.3d 1381, 1384 (Fed. Cir. 2006)....................................................................... 5 In re Modine Manufacturing Company, 18 Fed. Appx. 857, *3 (Fed. Cir. 2001).................................................................... 10 J. P. Peta, Inc. v. Club Protector, 65 Fed. App 724, 2003 WL 21206079, *3 n.2 (Fed. Cir. 2003)............................... 14 Kwik Products, Inc. v. National Express, Inc., 179 Fed. Appx. 34, *38 (Fed. Cir. 2006)....................................................................... 13 Laitram Corp. v. Rexnord, Inc., 939 F. 2d 1533, 1536 (Fed. Cir. 1991)...................................................................... 13 Lava Trading, Inc. v. Sonic Trading Management, LLC, 445 F.3d 1348, 1350 (Fed. Cir. 2006)....................................................................... 11 Lighting World, Inc. v. Brichwood Lighting, Inc., 382 F.3d 1354, 1361 (Fed. Cir. 2004)....................................................................... 12,13 Lizardtech, Inc. v. Earth Resource Mapping, Inc. 433 F.3d 1373, 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2006)....................................................................... 4, 10 Mas-Hamilton Group v. LaGard, Inc., 156 F.3d 1206, 1215 (Fed. Cir. 1998)....................................................................... 13 NeoMagic, Corp. v. Trident Microsystems, 287 F.3d 1062, 1074 (Fed. Cir. 2000)....................................................................... 11 ii

Case 1:06-cv-00762-JJF

Document 32

Filed 10/05/2007

Page 4 of 20

NetworkCommerce, Inc. v. Microsoft Corp., 422 F.3d 1353, 1359-60 (Fed. Cir. 2005) ................................................................. 5 Nystrom v. TREX, Co., 424 F.3d 1136, 1145 (Fed. Cir. 2005)....................................................................... 4 Old Town Canoe Co. v. Confluence Holdings Corp., 448 F.3d 1309, 1318 (Fed. Cir. 2006)....................................................................... 5 On Demand Machine Corp. v. Ingram Industries, Inc. 442 F.3d 1331, 1337 (Fed. Cir. 2006)....................................................................... 1, 2, 4, Phillips v. AWH Corp. 415 F.3d 1303, 1315-16 (Fed. Cir. 2005) ................................................................. 1,2,3,4,5, Playtex Prod., Inc. v. Proctor & Gamble Co., 400 F.3d 901 (Fed. Cir. 2005)................................................................................... 3 Primos, Inc. v. Hunter's Specialties, Inc. 451 F.3d 841, 845, 847048 (Fed. Cir. 2006)............................................................. 4 Verizon Services Corp. v. Vonage Holdings Corp., 2007 WL 2781869, *10 (Fed. Cir. 2007)...................................................6 Wilson Sporting Goods Co. v. Hillerich & Bradsby Co., 442 F.3d 1322, 1326 ................................................................................................. 11

DEL 86197501v1 10/5/2007

iii

Case 1:06-cv-00762-JJF

Document 32

Filed 10/05/2007

Page 5 of 20

Defendant Dexter Chasis Group, Inc. ("Dexter"), in response to Lippert Component Inc.'s Opening Brief on Claim Construction filed on September 14, 2008 ("Lippert's Brief"), states as follows: I. INTRODUCTION

Lippert's claim construction is legally and factually deficient in numerous respects. Most glaring is Lippert's consideration of the specification last in its claim construction analysis. As noted in Dexter's Opening Brief, the Federal Circuit's en banc Phillips decision returned the specification to the primary source for determining the meaning of claim terms. Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1315 (Fed. Cir. 1005) See also, On Demand Machine Corp. v. Ingram Industries, Inc., 442 F. 3d 1331, 1337 (Fed. Cir. 2006). In doing so, the Federal Circuit resolved a conflict between numerous panel opinions. On Demand, 442 F.3d at 1337. Lippert ignores Phillips, and first refers to everything but the specification to arrive at an overly broad meaning of "slidably mounted." See Lippert's Brief, pp. 6 - 14. When it finally pays lip-service to the specification, under the heading "The Intrinsic Evidence Further Supports...," Lippert attempts to obscure the claimed manner in which the "movable member" or "slide plate" and the "stationary member" or rails must be connected, that is "slidably mounted." Lippert Brief, p. 14. Lippert attempts to have the Court focus on the drive mechanism (which, in one embodiment, has a spur gear that rotates), while construing the term "slidably mounted." However, the drive mechanism, including a rotating spur gear, is not even included in independent claims 1, 7, 13, 17, 18, 21, and 22, and has nothing to do with the claim limitation "slidably mounted," which modifies how the slide plate (or "moveable member") and rails (or stationary member) must be connected together. 1

Case 1:06-cv-00762-JJF

Document 32

Filed 10/05/2007

Page 6 of 20

II. A.

DISCUSSION

Lippert Improperly Relied on Everything But the Specification.

Because it cannot prevail in its construction of "slide" by relying as it should on the specification as the primary source of meaning for claim construction, Lippert proceeds by first relying on a relatively obscure dictionary definition ("Wordnet", Lippert Brief, p. 11); second, relying on an extrinsic article regarding the "RV" industry that is not authenticated and copyrighted in 2002, six years after the relevant date for interpreting the claims, that is, 1996, the filing date; third, relying on cited and uncited prior art patents; and last, only after arguing all of the above, Lippert discusses the specification, albeit in a misleading way. Lippert's Brief, pp. 14 ­ 15. Lippert's "specification-last" approach is clear from the heading -- "The Intrinsic Evidence Further Supports LCI"s Construction." Lippert's Brief, p. 14 (emphasis added). Lippert's approach is contrary to the Phillips decision, 415 F.3d at 1315-16 (Fed. Cir. 2005). Prior to Phillips, "conflicting Federal Circuit panel opinions were producing uncertainty as to the law of claim construction." On Demand, 442 F. 3d at 1337. The On Demand court further stated: This court in Phillips emphasized that the proper judicial construction of a claim and its terms is from the viewpoint of a person of ordinary skill in the field of the invention; a court must determine how such a person would understand the claim in the context of the particular technology and the description in the specification, with due reference to the prosecution history. Thus the court in Phillips, resolving conflict, stressed the dominance of the specification in understanding the scope and defining the limits of the terms used in the claim. Id. at 1337 ­ 1338 (emphasis added). In view of the Federal Circuit's explicit instruction that the specification dominates claim construction, Lippert's saving of the specification to last (page 18 of its 23 page Brief) is legally incorrect. 2

Case 1:06-cv-00762-JJF

Document 32

Filed 10/05/2007

Page 7 of 20

The cases cited by Lippert are not controlling. For example, Lippert cited to CCS Fitness, Inc. v. Brunswick Corp, 288 F. 3d 1359 (Fed. Cir. 2002), a case decided before Phillips. Contrary to Phillips, CCS Fitness emphasized a "dictionary-first" approach.1 Under this over-ruled approach, the patentholder would first seek meaning from dictionaries, point to many different definitions all depending on context, and then argue that it was entitled to all of the definitions. See CCS Fitness at 1366. The Phillips decision expressly rejected this approach. See Acumed LLC v. Stryker Corp., 483 F.3d 800, 809 (Fed. Cir. 2007); Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1319 ­ 1324; Dexter Brief, p. 7. Lippert uses the approach found in CCS Fitness, among others, and rejected in Phillips. It refers first to a single dictionary definition, cited patents, and extrinsic evidence without reference to the specification; asserts a very broad definition of "slide"; then argues that the term must be given the broad definition without regard to the context of how the terms "slidably mounted" and the word "slidably" (and its variations) are used in the specification. Lippert attempts to raise the specter of "reading limitations from the specification into the claims" Lippert Brief, p. 6. This argument is a red-herring since one cannot "read-in" a limitation that was selected by the inventor and already present in the claims. Phillips instructed courts to embrace the specification in claim interpretation, not to refer to it as a last resort. "In general, the scope and outer boundary of claims is set
As another example of Lippert's use of out-dated case law, all of the cases cited in the heading "Claims Must be Read in Light of the Specification, But The Specification Does Not Establish the Boundaries of the Claim", are all pre-Phillips. The most recent, the Playtex Prod., Inc. v. Proctor & Gamble Co. , 400 F.3d 901 (Fed. Cir. 2005) case, issued in March, 2005, before Phillips, which was decided in July 2005. Attempting to reconcile pre-Phillips cases is a useless exercise; the Federal Circuit in Phillips acknowledged that there was conflict between panel opinions, and resolved the conflict.
1

3

Case 1:06-cv-00762-JJF

Document 32

Filed 10/05/2007

Page 8 of 20

by the patentee's description of his inventions." On Demand, 442 F3d. at 1331 (citing Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1313). Construing "slidably mounted" broadly to include a connection between the slide plate and rails that enable a rolling motion in spite of the narrow usage of that term in the specification would provide patent coverage that is broader than what the inventor actually invented and disclosed in his specification. As Lippert notes, it is true that claims should not automatically be limited to the preferred embodiment. However, "[o]ne does not receive entitlement to a period of exclusivity for what one has not disclosed to the public. ... But merely calling an embodiment "preferred," when there are no others, does not entitle one to claims broader than the disclosure." Lizardtech, Inc. v. Earth Resource Mapping, Inc., 433 F.3d 1373, 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2006). Contrary to Lippert's contentions, Dexter's interpretation of the word "slidably," is not reading a limitation into the claim. See Lippert's Brief, p. 6. Consistent with Dexter's approach to claim construction, all of the following postPhillips cases involved interpreting a common word by first looking at its usage in the specification, then looking to a dictionary to confirm the meaning found therein based on the context provided by the specification. The specification must be the starting point for claim construction. For example, in Nystrom v. TREX, Co., the court stated: [i]n the absence of something in the written description and/or prosecution history to provide explicit or implicit notice to the public-i.e., those of ordinary skill in the art-that the inventor intended a disputed term to cover more than the ordinary and customary meaning revealed by the context of the intrinsic record, it is improper to read the term to encompass a broader definition simply because it may be found in a dictionary, treatise, or other extrinsic source. 424 F.3d 1136, 1145 (Fed. Cir. 2005). Moreover, in Primos, Inc. v. Hunter' Specialties, Inc., s 4

Case 1:06-cv-00762-JJF

Document 32

Filed 10/05/2007

Page 9 of 20

451 F.3d 841, 845, 847-48 (Fed. Cir. 2006), the Federal Circuit affirmed the district court' claim s construction of the word "engaging". In that case, the district court rejected a dictionary definition that was broader and inconsistent with the use of the claim term in the patent at issue. Id. at 845. In Old Town Canoe Co. v. Confluence Holdings Corp., 448 F.3d 1309, 1318 (Fed.

Cir. 2006), the court held that the patentee is "not entitled to a claim construction divorced from the context of the written description and prosecution history." The district court properly interpreted the term "coalescence" by reviewing the dictionary definitions and the context of its usage in the specification and prosecution history. The court in Atofina v. Great Lakes Chem. Corp., 441 F.3d 991, 996 (Fed. Cir. 2006) looked to a dictionary for assistance where the word "catalyst" was not defined in the intrinsic record. The court quoted Free Motion Fitness, Inc. v. Cybex Int' Inc., 423 F.3d 1343, 1348-49 l, (Fed. Cir. 2005) for the proposition that "in those circumstances where reference to dictionaries is appropriate, the [court' task is to scrutinize the intrinsic evidence in order to determine the s] most appropriate definition " (emphasis added). Atofina, 441 F.3d at 996. The court in In re Johnson, 435 F.3d 1381, 1384 (Fed. Cir. 2006) cited Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1303, for the proposition that "[i]t is well established that dictionary definitions must give way to the meaning imparted by the specification. Finally, in NetworkCommerce, Inc. v. Microsoft Corp., 422 F.3d 1353, 1359-60 (Fed. Cir. 2005), the court rejected a proposed construction of the term "download component" based on the combination of two dictionary definitions as untenable "in light of the specification." As shown by these cases, claim terms must be interpreted using the specification first, and dictionaries may be consulted thereafter to assist in the interpretation.

5

Case 1:06-cv-00762-JJF

Document 32

Filed 10/05/2007

Page 10 of 20

The inventor's statements in the specification as to what "the invention" is, further supports Dexter's interpretation. The inventor described "the invention" as a "slide plate" that is "slidably secured" (i.e., slidably mounted") to "rails." While the patentee sought to expand the definition of "his invention" slightly by stating that "a wide variety of structure" was included, he then went on to limit "his invention" to a stationary member to which a "second member" "is mounted for slidable movement relative to the stationary member," "such as a tube within a tube or other systems known in the art." `715 Patent, Co. 8, ll. 76-32. From this description, the inventor limited the invention to a mechanism that consists of (1) a slide plate and rail or (2) "tube within a tube" systems. Both of these mechanisms involve the movement of one surface relative to and in constant contact with another. The reference to "other systems known in the art" is mere boilerplate that does not serve the public notice function, and furthermore, is encompassed within the context of the stationary member and a second member mounted for "slidable movement." "When a patent thus describes the features of the `present invention' as a whole, this description limits the scope of the invention." Verizon Services Corp. v. Vonage Holdings Corp., 2007 WL 2781869, *10 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (citing Honeywell Int'l., Inc. v. ITT Indus., 452 F.3d 1312, 1318-19 (Fed. Cir. 2006)). By describing "the invention" as limited to mechanisms with a "second member" mounted to a "stationary member" for "slidable movement," one skilled in the art would have no reason to think that the inventor meant to include other types of movement, such as rolling. Hence, Dexter's construction of "slidably mounted" does not limit the inventor to the preferred embodiment of a slide plate and rail, as Lippert argues. Instead, Dexter's interpretation 6

Case 1:06-cv-00762-JJF

Document 32

Filed 10/05/2007

Page 11 of 20

gives the inventor the full breadth of his disclosure, which also includes a "tube with a tube" system. Dexter's construction of "slidably mounted" is consistent with the usage in the specification and is supported by a number of well-respected dictionaries. The patentee could have simply said "mounted." He did not. He could have said "moveably mounted" to include all kinds of motion. He did not. Instead, he chose a particular type of motion, sliding ("slidably"), which means a surface moving in constant contact with a stationary surface. This is far different than a rolling motion. In fact, at least one dictionary defines sliding as "not rolling" (see Dexter's Brief, p. 13, Ex. J, K). Because the dictionary definition of "slidably" is consistent with the use of the term in the specification, there is no need to go to other intrinsic or extrinsic evidence. Nevertheless, the remaining intrinsic and extrinsic evidence that is relevant and admissible further supports Dexter's interpretation. B. Lippert's Late Discussion of the Specification Is Misleading

Even when Lippert does discuss the specification in connection with "slidably mounted," it deliberately confuses the "drive means" with the moveable member (or slide plate) and the support member (or rail) which are "slidably mounted." See Lippert Brief, p. 15. One of the several "drive means" described in the patent is a rotating spur gear (`715 Patent, Col. 6, ll. 4345), along with "hydraulic pistons, chain drives, screw gears, scissor jacks, or manual means." (Col. 6, ll. 42-43). Lippert attempts to associate the rotating spur gear with the limitation "slidably mounted" and argues disingenuously that "slidably mounted" can include rollers. However, the "slide plate" or "moveable member" must be "mounted" to the "support member." 7

Case 1:06-cv-00762-JJF

Document 32

Filed 10/05/2007

Page 12 of 20

These structures exist apart from whatever "drive means" (of the several listed in the specification) a designer would choose to move the slide plate or movable member with respect to the support member. The "slidably mounted" limitation has nothing to do with the "drive means" and, in particular, the rotating spur gear. Thus, the mention of a rotating spur gear sheds no light on the meaning of "slidably mounted." C. Discussion of Lippert's Use of Other Patents

Lippert argues that "a number of third party patents addressing related inventions further illustrate the understanding of the term `slide' within the RV industry... ." Lippert Brief, p. 12. Contrary to Lippert's representation, the Vitalini patent has nothing to do with the "RV" industry. It concerns a "Building Having a Telescopic Section." Lippert's Brief, Ex. 4. The DeBiaggio patent does disclose a "slideout mechanism," and one of the embodiments utilized rollers, but it also discloses a "tube within a tube" structure where two surfaces slide over one another. See Lippert's Brief, Ex. 5, Fig. 24. All that can be said is that the DeBiggio patent uses the term "slidably" inconsistent with not only the specification of the `715 Patent but also the dictionary definition of "slide." A thorough study of the cited art demonstrates one thing--the inventor knew about rollers in connection with extendable rooms, yet failed to mention them as alternative embodiments as he did with the "tube within a tube" system. Extendable rooms for campers or recreational vehicles are very old in the art. See Dexter's Brief, Ex. B, Ex. 1, 2,225,319 Patent, issued in 1940; Ex. D, 2,606,057 Patent, which issued in 1952. The designs shown in these and other cited patents utilized rollers to some degree as part of the mechanism for extending and retracting the room, yet the rooms were not referred to as "slide-out" rooms. For example, 8

Case 1:06-cv-00762-JJF

Document 32

Filed 10/05/2007

Page 13 of 20

United States Patent No. 4,500,132 (Ex. L attached hereto)2 shows an extension mechanism (telescopic extension members 43) that resembles the slide plate or tube-within-a-tube structures described in the `715 Patent and did not utilize rollers. United States Patent No. 5,237,782 uses the word "slide-out" to describe an assembly using a "tube within a tube" structure that slides, i.e., relative movement with continuous surface to surface contact. Ex. M, Figure 3; Col. 4. Likewise, the following cited references use "slide" or "slide-out" in connection with extension mechanisms in which two surfaces move in continuous, surface to surface contact. See Ex. N, United States Patent No. 5,577,351 (describing a tube 48 "slideably received" within a tube 46 (Col. 2, ll. 37-39)); Ex. O, United States Patent 5,491,933 (inner and outer support tubes (Col. 5, ll. 5-10)); Lippert's Brief, Ex. 5, United States Patent No. 5,620,224 (Col. 8, ll. 48-59; stationary channel members 253 and frame members 254 "slidably and telescopingly engage" one another). A few of the cited patents disclose rollers (e.g., `319 Patent, issued in 1940, the `224 Patent, and the `276 Patent), but, the inventor did not mention rollers as alternative embodiments. Perhaps the most telling references as to the meaning of the claim terms are the nonpatent art, that is, the two drawings from Peterson Industries. Ex. P. In each of these, the inventor labeled the drawings "Slide out mechanism", and also labeled each part, including a "slide plate." The mechanism shown in these drawings is a slide plate having a surface which moves in constant contact over the surface of a support member. Hence, the cited art as a whole supports Dexter's interpretation.

2

The last Exhibit to Dexter's Brief was Ex. K. Hence, the first exhibit to this Response is Ex. L. 9

Case 1:06-cv-00762-JJF

Document 32

Filed 10/05/2007

Page 14 of 20

The cited art demonstrates that, in this old and crowded field, the inventor claimed a very particular type of extension apparatus.3 The inventor of the `715 Patent knew of the prior art, yet, even though the use of rollers were well-known, he chose to limit his claims to mechanism that was "slidably mounted." He did not disclose rollers, even though he did disclose the slide plate (e.g., as shown in the Peterson drawings), and also a "tube within a tube" structure. Hence, one skilled in the art would have no reason to conclude that "slidably mounted" meant anything other than the dictionary definition which consists of two surfaces moving with respect to one another in constant contact. D. Discussion of Lippert's Submission of Dexter's Drawings

Lippert improperly attempts to inject infringement issues into claim construction by its discussion of the Dexter drawings. Lippert Brief, p. 16. The Federal Circuit, as noted in In addition, it is important to remember that "[i]n general, the scope and outer boundary of claims is set by the patentee's description of his inventions." On Demand, 442, F. 3d at 1331 (citing Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1313); Lizardtech, 433 F.3d at 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2006). The inventor did not incorporate by reference into the specification any of the patents relied upon by Lippert. Even in cases where the inventor explicitly attempted to "incorporate by reference," the Federal Circuit still found that the references were not part of the disclosure. See In re Modine Manufacturing Company, 18 Fed. Appx. 857, *3 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (finding that the written description requirement was not met by a patent that was incorporated by reference, but not in a way that made it clear that the claimed range for a certain dimension was part of the application); See also Atmel Corp. v. Information Storage Devices, Inc., 198 F.3d 1374, 1381 (Fed. Cir. 1999) (deciding that "the inquiry is whether structure is described in the specification" and not whether it is "incorporated by reference) (emphasis in original); See generally Advanced Display Systems, Inc. v. Kent State University, 212 F.3d 1272 (Fed. Cir. 2000) (holding material must be cited "in a manner that makes clear that the material is effectively part of the host document as if it were explicitly contained therein...the host document must identify with detailed particularity what specific material it incorporates and clearly indicate where that material is found in the various documents"). Hence, the disclosure of the `715 Patent does not include the cited patents as part of the patentee's disclosure describing his inventions. 10
3

Case 1:06-cv-00762-JJF

Document 32

Filed 10/05/2007

Page 15 of 20

Dexter's Brief (p. 2, n.2), has recently held that the accused product provides context for claim construction. See Wilson Sporting Goods Co. v. Hillerich & Bradsby Co., 442 F.3d 1322, 132627, 1331 (Fed. Cir. 2006); See Lava Trading, Inc. v. Sonic Trading Management, LLC, 445 F.3d 1348, 1350 (Fed. Cir. 2006). The purpose for doing so is to insure that the court is not merely issuing an advisory opinion. See Lava, 445 F.3d at 1350. However, this purpose was accomplished by the introduction of photographs of the accused products. Dexter's Brief (pp. 23,10). Lippert transcended the law by submitting Dexter's drawings of Exhibit 10 and discussing them in connection with claim construction. See Wilson., 442 F.3d at 1330-31 (quoting NeoMagic, Corp. v. Trident Microsystems, 287 F.3d 1062, 1074 (Fed. Cir. 2000) ("It is well settled that claims may not be construed by reference to the accused device.")). Furthermore, the drawings of Exhibit 10 are dated 2004 and 2006, but the relevant date for claim interpretation is 1996. How a person skilled in the art would use the word "slide" to describe the entire structure in 2004 or 2006 is entirely irrelevant. Furthermore, how the entire assembly is described has no bearing on the meaning of the claim term "slidably mounted." E. "Moveable Member" is a Means-Plus-Function Limitation

As expected, Lippert lumps all of the "member" elements found in the claims, "moveable member," "stationary member", and "support member," together, and argues that Dexter's position is inconsistent. The point Lippert misses or deliberately avoid is that "moveable member" is a claim term that is not found in the specification. Lippert's argument was addressed in footnote 4 of Dexter's Brief. As Lippert notes, numerous "members" are described in the specification: "stationary member," "retractable member," "slidable member," "support member," "slide member" "frame member," and "angle member." Lippert's Brief, p. 18. 11

Case 1:06-cv-00762-JJF

Document 32

Filed 10/05/2007

Page 16 of 20

However, none of these terms, except for "stationary member" and "support member" are claim terms and are also found in the specification. Noticeably absent from the specification is the term "moveable member." Dexter's position is entirely consistent. By reference to the specification, a person skilled in the art reading the claim terms "stationary member" and "support member" in the context of the specification would have some chance of determining what the inventor claimed by these terms as his invention. The same cannot be said of "moveable member." "Stationary member" is used synonymously in the specification with the word "rail," which are labeled elements 21 and 22. `715 Patent, Col. 8, ll. 33-39; see Dexter's Brief, n. 4. The word "support member" is found in the specification. Further it is foreseen that a wide variety of support legs or members could be used for supporting the rear ends 37 and 38 of the rails 21 and 22 above the floor 15 including support means such as threaded rods with pivotal feet, the rods being threadingly secured to the rails 21 and 22 or rear cross-brace 35. It is also foreseen that in some applications it may not be necessary to utilize a support member for supporting the rear end of the rail or stationary member. It may be possible support the stationary member only at a front end thereof. The fact that the inventor used "member" and "means" interchangeably suggests that "member" should be construed as a "means-plus-function" limitation. Furthermore, because the two claim terms "stationary member" and "support member" are used in the specification, they are not indefinite when interpreted as "rail" (as set forth in Dexter's Brief) as to the former and as support legs as to the latter. The cases Lippert cites are distinguishable. While it is true that in some of the cases upon which Lippert relies, the term "member" has been interpreted as a structural element, in those instances, the claim term was found in the specification. E.g., Lighting World, Inc. v. Brichwood 12

Case 1:06-cv-00762-JJF

Document 32

Filed 10/05/2007

Page 17 of 20

Lighting, Inc., 382 F.3d 1354, 1361 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (construing "connector assembly" as a structural term); Kwik Products, Inc. v. National Express, Inc., 179 Fed. Appx. 34, *38 (Fed. Cir. 2006); Laitram Corp. v. Rexnord, Inc., 939 F.2d 1533, 1536 (Fed. Cir. 1991) (interpreting "cross member," which was found in the specification and illustrated in drawings); Depuy Spine, Inc. v. Medtronic Sofamore Danek, Inc., 469 F. 3d 1005, 1023 (Fed. Cir. 2006); CCS Fitness, Inc. v. Brunswick Corp., 288 F.3d 1359, 1360 (Fed. Cir. 2002) (interpreting "reciprocating members," which is found in the specification (as found by a review of the patent at issue). The only case Lippert cites where "member" was not used in the specification but still found to be a structural element is Al-Site Corp. v. VSI International, Inc. 174 F.3d 1308, 1318 (Fed. Cir. 1999). This case is distinguishable because the court found that there was sufficient structure in the claims themselves for performing the claimed function. Al-Site Corp., 174 F.3d at 1318.4 In contrast, there are no additional structures set forth in the claims of the `715 Patent to perform the claimed functions. Here, the terms "moveable" and "moveable member" are noticeably absent from the specification is "moveable" and "moveable member." The claimed function, "for securement of the slide-out room thereto..." is found in the specification, and is associated with the structure of a slide plate as further discussed in Dexter's Brief (pp. 17-19). As noted above in connection with the discussion of "support member," the inventor used "member" and "means" interchangeably in the `715 Patent. As shown by the highly analogous case, Mas-Hamilton
4

"[A]lthough these claim elements include a function, namely, `mounting a pair of eyeglasses,' the claims themselves contain sufficient structural limitations for performing those functions. As noted above, claim 1 of the `345 patent describes the eyeglass hanger member as `made from flat sheet material' with an `opening means formed ... below [its] upper edge.' This structure removes this claim from the purview of § 112, ¶ 6." 13

Case 1:06-cv-00762-JJF

Document 32

Filed 10/05/2007

Page 18 of 20

Group v. LaGard, Inc., 156 F.3d 1206, 1215 (Fed. Cir. 1998), cited in Dexter's Brief, where the word "member" is followed by a functional term and is not found in the specification, it should be interpreted under Section 112(6). Hence, the term "moveable member" must be interpreted under Section 112(6). Alternatively, the term "moveable means" should be found invalid for

indefiniteness, lack of written description, and/or lack of enablement. F. Lippert's Description of "One of Ordinary Skill in the Art" is Incorrect and Unsubstantiated Dexter disputes Lippert's description of the level of ordinary skill in the art. Lippert Brief, p. 10. The level of experience and education is overstated. Furthermore, the "level of one skilled in the art" is a fact question and Lippert's assertion is completely unsupported by any evidence. Graham v. John Deere, 383 U.S. 1, 17 (1966). In relatively simple technologies such as this, expert testimony for claim construction is unnecessary. See J. P. Peta, Inc. v. Club Protector, 65 Fed. App. 724, 2003 WL 21206079, *3 n.2 (Fed. Cir. 2003). The parties even agreed that expert testimony in this case would be unnecessary for claim construction. Lippert's injection of a fact question that would require expert testimony to resolve is inconsistent with this agreement.5 III. CONCLUSION

For all of these reasons, Dexter respectfully requests that the Court adopt Dexter's proposed claim construction as set forth herein.

Nevertheless, in the event the court determines that expert testimony is desirable to resolve this fact issue, Dexter requests leave to submit extrinsic evidence of the "level of one skilled in the art." 14

5

Case 1:06-cv-00762-JJF

Document 32

Filed 10/05/2007

Page 19 of 20

Dated: October 5, 2007

Respectfully submitted, GREENBERG TRAURIG, LLP

By:/s/ Donald J. Detweiler Donald J. Detweiler (#3087) [email protected] Titania R. Mack (#4120) [email protected] The Nemours Building 1007 North Orange Street Suite 1200 Wilmington, Delaware 19801 302-661-7000 - Telephone 302-661-7360 - Facsimile and -

George G. Matava Brian A. Carpenter Greenberg Traurig LLP 1200 Seventeenth St., Suite 2400 Denver, Colorado 80202 (303) 572-6500 - Telephone (303) 572-6540 - Facsimile Attorneys for Defendant Dexter Axle Company

15

Case 1:06-cv-00762-JJF

Document 32

Filed 10/05/2007

Page 20 of 20

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that true and correct copies of the foregoing were caused to be served on October 5, 2007 upon the following individuals in the manner indicated. VIA HAND DELIVERY: Thomas C. Grimm Leslie A. Polizoti Morris, Nichols, Arsht & Tunnel, LLP 1201 N. Market Street Wilmington, DE 19801 VIA FIRST CLASS MAIL: Dean A. Monco Brad R. Bertoglio Wood Phillips 500 West Madison Street Suite 3800 Chicago, IL 60661-2562 /s/ Donald J. Detweiler Donald J. Detweiler (No. 3087)

DEL 86197501v1 10/5/2007

16

Case 1:06-cv-00762-JJF

Document 32-2

Filed 10/05/2007

Page 1 of 8

EXHIBIT
L

Case 1:06-cv-00762-JJF

Document 32-2

Filed 10/05/2007

Page 2 of 8

United States Patent (191 Yoder
(54) TRAVEL TRAILER FRAME SUPPORT
(76) Inventor: Clarence T. Yoder, 11642 County

(I I) Patent Number: (45) Date of Patent:

4,500,132
. Feb. 19, 1985

2,877,509 3/J959 Klibanow ........................... 296/171 4,108.326 8/1978' Bertolini ........................... 296/181

Road 36, Goshen, Ind. 46526
(21) Appl. No.: 535,946

Primary Examiner-Robert R. Song Attorney, Agem. or Firm-James D. HaJJ
ABSTRACT (57) In a travel trailer having a floor, side and end walls, and a roof where the floor is supported by frame members. The trailer is provided with a frame support taking the form of a strap which is connected at one end to a rear end portion of the floor or frame members and which

(22) Filed: Sep. 26, 1983

(51) Int. C1..\ ............................................. B62D 39/00 (52) U.S. C1. .................................... 296/171; 296/181; 296/188 (581 Field of Search ............... 296/181, 183, 187, 188,

296/170,171,172,168;52/73,67

(56)

References Cited

U.S. PATENT DOCUMENTS
2.813,747 11/1957 Rice, Jr. .............................. 296/171

passes upwardly and forwardly along the roof of the trailer where its opposite end is connected to the roof. The purpose of the frame support is to prevent sagging
of the floor and frame members.
4 Claims, 4 Drawing Figures

2,820,666 1/1958 Grochmal .........:............... 296/171

Case 1:06-cv-00762-JJF

Document 32-2

Filed 10/05/2007

Page 3 of 8

u.s. Patent Feb.

19, 1985

Sheet 1 of 4

4,500,132

~

~

'"

~

Case 1:06-cv-00762-JJF

Document 32-2

Filed 10/05/2007

Page 4 of 8

u.s. Patent' Feb. 19,1985

Sheet 2 of 4

4,500,132

~

'- ~
Il

~

~

t\
~

~
~\
ii

~

./ /

~.'

Case 1:06-cv-00762-JJF

Document 32-2

Filed 10/05/2007

Page 5 of 8

u.s. Patent Feb.

19, 1985

Sheet 3 of4 4,500,132

~

~
?
:7
:P

.~

~

~

.

~

l'

~

'0

Case 1:06-cv-00762-JJF

Document 32-2

Filed 10/05/2007

Page 6 of 8

u.s. Patent . Feb. 19, 1985

Sheet 4 of 4

4,500,132

(10

\ 28
~:-~ ~ ~ _~, ,,,"'~:': ::" r .. '-:_....

v
~

,,

'.

.

"
'.
i'

"

!;
(,
I',:

".
,v

. '.
" Ii

43 41
1.2

13.4

Case 1:06-cv-00762-JJF

Document 32-2

Filed 10/05/2007

Page 7 of 8

4,500,132
1

2
gers 14 and is secured to the outriggers with bolts 18, or

other fastening devices, which pass through the floor structure. and into the outriggers. Longitudinal frame SUMMARY OF THE INVENTION members 12 mount axles 20 which in turn journal This invention relates to a frame support for a mobile 5 wheels 22 for rolling transportation of mobile structure 10. Side walls 24 and end walls 26 are supported upon structure, such as a travel trailer. The mobile structure includes a frame having longituframe members 12 and outriggers 14. A roof 28 is supdinal frame members. The frame is supported by axles ported by side walls 24 and end waJJs 26. which in turn mount a wheel at each of their ends for One side wall 24 has an opening 36 formed therein
roIlng support of the mobile structure, The structure 10 rearwardly of
axles

TRAVEL TRAER FRAME SUPPORT

20. Side waJJ opening 36 is adapted

includes side and end walls mounted to the frame, and a roof structure supported by the side and end walls. The axles of such mobile structures are usually located gen-

to accommodate a slideout room 38 which includes a

floor 40, side walls 42, end wail 44, and a roof 46. Shifting of slideout room 38 between its retracted, or travel erally intermediate of the length of the longitudinal position shown in FIG. 3, and its extended, or set up frame members, thereby producing a .cantilevered 15 position, shown in FIGS. 1 and 4, is accomplished with frame supporting effect about the axles. The forward an electric motor 39 connected through a gearbox 41 to
end of the mobile structure, however, is usually supmobile structure is not supported iind may be subject to

ported by a towing vehicle. The rearward end of the

telescopic

extension members 43 which, in turn, are

connected to the slideout room.

sagging, especially when additional weight is placed on 20 axle 20 places additional weight on longitudinal frame the rear end of the frame, such as by the addition of a members 12 which may cause the frame members to sag
slideout room.

Slideout room 38, when it is located rearwardly of

It is, therefore, the intention of this invention to proviae a mobile structure frame which does not sag about its axle support. One or more tensioning straps are se- 25 cured each at one end to the rear end of the mobile structure frame or floor and extend upward along the
roof structure toward the front end of

at the rear end of the trailer, The frame support of this

invention is intended to prevent or reduce such sagging of longitudinal frame members 12. The frame support
includes flexible stretch resistant straps 50, which are preferably formed of steel having a width of approximately one and one quarter inches. Each strap 50 is

the mobile struc-

ture. Each strap is secured at its opposite end to the

connected with screws 51 or similar fasteners at an end

edge of floor structure 16. Each strap 50 continues from Accordingly, it is an object of this invention to provide a novel and useful way of preventing sagging af . . . its end portion 52 upwardly along the rear end of a side wall 24 from where it extends in tension forwardly the frame ora mobile structure. along roof 28 and is connected by screws 51 or similar Another object of this invention is to provide a novel and useful frame support for a mobile structure which 35 fasteners at its opposite end porton 53 forwardly of prevents sagging of the frame when it carries excess trailer side wall opening 36 and preferably at least over
ends. provide a frame support for a mobile structure which is light in weight
weight, such as a slideout room, at one of its Another object of this invention is to and easily

structure and supports the frame against sagging. 30 portion 52 to the underside and at a rearward lateral

axles 20 to the frame 29 of roof 28. If desired, each strap

Other objects of this invention wil become apparent upon a reading of the following description.

attached. 40 above mentioned fashion before slideout room 38 is
Straps 50 are applied to mobile strcture 10 in the
the travel trailer

50 may be tacked or anchored at spaced locations between its end portions to roof frame 29.

added in order to place the straps in tension and cause longitudinal frame members 12 to be slightly cambered BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF THE DRAWINGS so that when the slideout room is. added it wil be supFI G, 1 is a partial. perspective view of a travel trailer 45 ported without appreciable sagging of the frame memwith portions broken away to ilustrate the frame supthe frame support to bers. Subsequent to the assembly of
port and showing an extended side room. .

. of ilustration. . 50
FIG. 3 is a rear end view of the travel trailer with portions broken away to ilustrate the frame support.
FIG. 4 is a fragmentar sectional view taken along

with the side room removed and portions broken away for purposes
FIG. 2 is a side view of

mobile structure 10, siding 54 and roof skin 56 are added to the mobile structure.

It is to be understood that the invention is not to be limited by the terms of the above description, but may
be modified within the scope of the appended clas. I claim:

line 4-4 of FIG. 1.
DESCRIPTION OF THE PREFERRD EMBODIMENT The preferred embodiment ilustrated is not intended to be exhaustive or to limit the invention to the precise form disclosed. It is chosen and described in order to 60 explain the principles of the invention and its application and practical use to thereby enable others skiled in
the art to utilize the invention.
This invention includes a mobile 55

1. In combination, a 'mobile structure and a frame
support for said mobile strcture, said mobile structure

including a longitudinal frame, an axe attached in said

frame and carrying wheels, a floor secured to said
frame, side walls and end walls extending upwardly from said floor, one of said side walls having an opening formed therein rearwardly of said axle, a roof overlying said end walls and side wiills, a slideout room fitting in
said side wall opening, and being shiftble between

extended and retracted positions, said frame support

structure 10, such as

a travel trailer, which includes longitudinal frame mem- 65 bers 12. Outriggers 14 project laterally outwardly from the outer side faces of frame members .12. A floor struc. ture 16 is supported upon frame members 12 and outrig-

including a strap secured at one end portion to one of said floor and frame and continuing in tension rearwardly of said side wail opening upwardly along one of said end walls and forwardly along said roof, said strap
secured at its other end to said roof,

Case 1:06-cv-00762-JJF

Document 32-2

Filed 10/05/2007

Page 8 of 8

along said one end wall and forwardly aiong said root. said second strap secured at Its other end to said rooi. said first mentioned ana secona straps oeing ¡paCed roof. 3. The combination of claim 1 wherein said frame apart. 4. The combination or' ..:iaim 3 woerein saià straps support includes a second strap secured at one end 5

2. The combination of claim 1 wherein said strap is tacked along its length to said one end wall and said

3.

4,500,132
.L

portion to said one floor or frame and continuing in

extend along ol'Posite sides of said mObile structure.
t: * . z: I:

tension rearwardly of said side wall opening upwardly
10

15

20

15

30

35

~o

~5

so

55

60

65

Case 1:06-cv-00762-JJF

Document 32-3

Filed 10/05/2007

Page 1 of 11

EXHIBIT M

Case 1:06-cv-00762-JJF

Document 32-3

Filed 10/05/2007

Page 2 of 11

111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111

USO5237782A

United States Patent (19)
Coope
(54) SLABLE ROOM ASLY FOR

(11)

Patent Number:

5,237,782
Aug. 24, 1993

(45)

Date of Patent:

RETIONAL VECL
Riverde, Ca.

FOREGN PATE DONTS
lOS5976 611956 Fed Re. of Gey...... 296/165

(75) Inventor: De R. Cope, Nuevo, Ca.

206360 5/1970 Fed Re of Gey..... 29/179
2712270 9/1978 Fed. Re. of

(73) Asgnee: Fleeoo Enteri Ine.
(21) AppL. No.: 694,12

Gey ......296117

2573016 1111984 Fnnce ................................ 29/165

003317 7/1983 Itiy .................................... 29/26 201589 711978 Unite Kigdom ................ 296/26

(22) Filed: Ma 1, 191

(51) Int. o.s ..................................... E0B 1/34
(52) U.s. a. .......................................... 52/67; 296/26; 296/171; 296/175

Asnt Exner-Che Ket Attrn, Agent, or Fi-Pr Ge &: Ub

Prmary Exminerl D. Fri

(57) ~cr

(~8) Fid of Sacl ................ 296/26, 165, 171, 17;

A sUle room havi an improved s1ut asbly

52/67; 174109

an an improved liquid seg asbly at an inteace
betwee an opeg in the reona vehcle and an exnor wal of the ro is provied. Th sle-ut

(56) Referee Cite U.S. PATENT DOCU
Re. 32,262 10/1986 Stear .............................. 296/26

asmbly includes a sttiona ma fre asbly

havig a pa of suppo membe held in a fied pael

2,243,659 5/1941 Thompsn.
2,519,517 8/1950 Van Tasl . 2,561,921 711951 Guiot.

relonsp, a sigle tramoD mec fiedy
inte betwee the support membe, and a sldale

supprt asbly sldaly reed in the pai of support

2,739,833 3/1956 Schenel et aI. .

membe for extedig and contrtig the rom. The
liquid seg asbly is dipo arund the inieñac
betwee the sldale room and the opeg in the rere-

2,744,781 5/1956 Blak ................................. 296/171

2,82066 1/1958 Grhmal ........................... 296/171
2,822,212 2/1958 Frey.................................... 296/23

ation vehcle's exor wa. A fit flge membe is
af to a top edge an sie edges of the sldale

2,90556 9/1959 Catele et aI. .................... 296/26 3,116,085 12/1963 UUley ................................. 296/26

3,341,986 9/1967 Brosg.
3,572,809 3/1.9.71 Buland .............................. 296/175

ro's exor wa. A se complementa flge member is afed to a top edge and side edges of the

3,792,189 2/1974 Stengel et ai. ..................... 174/69 3,797,880 3/1974 Pezgl ............................. 20/26
4,049,310 9/1977 YOder ................................. 296/26

opeg in the receaona vehicle. The flge members include adjact protrons for inbitig the flow

of liquid therebetwee when the sldable rom is fuy
retr into the retiona vehcle.

4,133,571 1/1979 Filios ................................... 296/26
4,253,283 3/1981 May........................................ 52/67

4,955,661 9/1990 Mattce ............................... 296/171

22 Cl 4 Drwi Sh

Case 1:06-cv-00762-JJF

Document 32-3

Filed 10/05/2007

Page 3 of 11

u.s. Patent

Aug. 24, 193

Sheet 1 of 4

5,237,782

FIG. /

FIG. 6

.
/8

104

Case 1:06-cv-00762-JJF

Document 32-3

Filed 10/05/2007

Page 4 of 11

u.s. Patent

Aug. 24, 1993

Sheet 2 of 4

5,237,782

C\

~ ll

Case 1:06-cv-00762-JJF

Document 32-3

Filed 10/05/2007

Page 5 of 11

u.s. Patent

Aug. 24, 1993

Sheet 3 of 4

5,237,782

FIG. 3

42
,.

~ /2 .j
82

66 54

60

í

64

FIG. 5

/8

Case 1:06-cv-00762-JJF

Document 32-3

Filed 10/05/2007

Page 6 of 11

u.s. Patent

Aug. 24, 1993

Sheet 4 of 4

5,237,782

Q
Ie

!.,::¡;....~::... .:....~... . ...... ..~.'),.:.-: ~...-å...."\:::..t~:...r.

~

.

~.
:t.
.'

i(

~

f'

rt
~:

-;:
~:

.;

.,
..
.'.

:.

:~
~.

.\.

~ ..;
..:¡

"

:..

~I

~ ~ li
~I

.

Case 1:06-cv-00762-JJF

Document 32-3

Filed 10/05/2007

Page 7 of 11

5,237,782
1
cay

2
actute from outsde the vehcle, which ca ex-

SLABLE ROOM ASLY FOR

RETIONAL VECL

po the us to adver envinmenta elements. Oter
and bidig of the room whie sldig th room, and

divantaes of the hydrulc desgn include skewig

I. Field of the Invention ments.

BACKGROUN OF TH INNTON s loa-beg po beg expo to envionmenta ele-

able or sldale rom in a reeation vehcle tht ca be to ex anti cotr wa and floors of the

The subjec invention relate geery to rece- U.S. Pat No. 2,S2212 dislos a mobile trer tht ationa vehcles and, more pacully, to an expad- ha a motor cale of dnvig thee power scew mem-

be ecnomcay maufactu. 10 mobie trer.

.2. Deption of Reate Ar U.S. Pat. No. 2,744,781 dilos an expable vehi-

In order to increa the availe inteor sp of cle boy tht ha an exon seon on either side. An retiona vehcles, suh as trer includg thos overlap of a floo membe pivots downward when the

commonly reer to as "f whee" slde-ut rootn vehicle boy is in he expaded stte. A had cr is
ca be mae integr with the vehcle. Dug.tr 15 us to'achieve exon and retron of

thes rotn ca be retrte and stored in the vehcle's si seons

the ex-

inteor, with the exor wal of the sldeut rom Finy, housgs havig exansible seon and de-

approxiy flush with the vehcle's exor. To us vice us to exd an contr expanle seons
the sle-ut rom, the vehcle is fi paked and lev- ar dilos in the followig pats: U.S. Pat. Nos.

e1ed Th slde-ut rom is then sld outward from the 20 2,243659: 2,519517' 2,561921' 2,739833' 2,744 781'
vehcle, increa the inteor sp of

the vehicle. 2,822'21~ and 3341986. " ., "

under advere conditions such as ra, sleet, or snow, SUMY OF TH INNTION
water teds to lea.into the intenor of the ve~cle in the It is thefore an objec of the prest inv~tion to ar betwee the slde-ut room and the exnor wal of 25 provide an improved sUle rom for reeationa

A problem with slide-ut rootn is tht dung trant ' ., .

the vehi.cle. ~a~r may ev~ l~ into the vehcle when vehcles the v~cle IS beg ~tored m mclement wea~er. The It is another objec of the invention to provide an
A number of mo~ve device are cuently. us to 30 and an opeg in the receaona vehcle;

effectiv~es of seg systeii curently beg us improved liquid seg asbly tht inòits the flow ca be improved to ~dres ~ problem. of liquid betwee an exor wa of the sldale room
exd and retrct slde-out rotn. Thes devce may I' th b' f th .. be hydrulc, pneumtic, electnc, siple geag mech- . t IS ~o er 0 ~ec 0 e ~ret mv~ti~n to pro

an, or varous combintions thereof. An exple of vide a ~de-ut asbly havig a ~on asa prevalent electrnicay actute geag mecha bly tht IS ~tiy fr .of loa-be for tht
includes fit and send cylidnca extedig pots 35 suport the weight of the slidable rom;

tht are afed to a power asbly. The power as- . It is a,other object of the pret inv~tion to pr~
bly is actute eleconicay and is diecy connec ",de a sI~ut asbly tht mcludes a smgle tr

to the rust cylidnca pot using gea for extding Slon ~echa ~d ..

and contractig an iier sleeve in the po. The send . It IS ~other obje of the .prest mvc:~on to propot is connec to the power asmbly though a 40 ,:de a s~de-ut asbly havig a trni0!l mecha-

series of sh and gea boxes. A gea box inte ms which ca be protete from ex envionmenbetwee the posts ha a hand cra adptor so the pots ta elements.. .. ca be exended or contracte by had ü the electnca Thes and other objects of the pret mvention are

power fal. ac~eved by. provi~g a sldable rom for. a reeationa A didvantage of th desgn exts in tht the send 45 ~ehicle ha~g a slde-ut asbly tht .mcludes a stpot is connecte to the power asbly though the tlona ma fre asbly and a sldale support sees of gea boxes and sh, and there may be syn- asbly tht is afed to the rom. chroni probletn betwee the fi and seud pots The stationa ma fre asmbly is afed to a
when they are extendig or contrg. Th ca reult cha of the retiona vehcle an includes a pa of

in the room beg skewed or bindig dung the SO support mebe tht ar held in a fied pael relasign is tht the pot's iner sleeves are loa-beg, beee the suprt membe so tht the tron
sleeves pots and power asbly when slig the supportg th weight of

trt sldig action. Another divantage of th de- tionp. A sigle tron mecha is interp

which ca reult in an exceve st on the iner mecha is not suject to loa-bg forc for
the roo. The sldaJe support

rom. A fuer divatage of th desgn is tht the 55 asbly is afed to the rom and is sldaly reed iner sleeves of the po are exp to varous envi- in the pa of surt mebe for exdig and conronmenta elements such as ra di and roa gre tr the ro in re to the opetion of the

when the r() is exnded, as wel as dung sldig of tron mecha

the rom. Thes elements ca slowly deteriorate the A preferred emboent of the sldale rom in-

iner sleeves and the interior of the po. An exaple 60 cludes an improved seg asbly beee an inte-

of one ty .of slde-ut mecha is maufactued by fac of the sldale room and an opeg in a side of the

Baker Manufactug of Batte Crk, Mich. retiona vehicle for preventi water frm leag Another slde-ut mecha design us a pa of into the recreationa vehicle when the room is fuy hydrulicay-ate cylidnca posts emboyig contrted. A fi flge membe is afed to a top
some of the desgn featues of the pnor mecha. 65 edge and side edges of an exor wall of

Ths mecham us coon hydraulc priciples to flange member has an elongate porton extedig mextnd and contrct the room. A divantage of the aly away frm the extor wal of the room and in-

the room. The

hydraulicay-acted desgn is that the rom is typi- eludes a pluralty of protrons on its intenor sides. A

Case 1:06-cv-00762-JJF

Document 32-3

Filed 10/05/2007

Page 8 of 11

5,237,782 3 send complementa flge member is afed to a support
top edge and side edges of the opeg in the receationa vehicle. The send flge member includes a

4
be 36, 38 may be stel Cchaels 3 inches

long with 2-inch sides an 10 inches ta. Affed on top

plurty of complementa protrons on its exenor
sies for inhibiting water from flowig betwee the fi
flge membèr and the send flange membe when the

of the pa'of support be 36, 38 are a fust rectagula, hollow, elongate gue or support member 40 and

5 a sed recgu, hollow, elongate gude or sup-

port membe 42. The support membe 40, 42 may be
ste, for exple, and ca be 22 inches long, 2i inches

room is fuy contracted. The se asbly fuer

includes flexible se for fuer preventig liquid from

flowig betwee the flge membe.

wide, and 5 inches high. Afed in eah end 44, 46 of
the support membe 40, 42 ar a top st roller

48 and

10 a BRIF DESON OF TH DRAWIGS grte inbottm stl the top roners 48 in the SO ar diter th roller SO. The bottm roller pre-

The objec and feares of the pret invention, fered emboenL
whih are beeved to be novel, are set fort with pae- Interp beee th support mebers 40, 42 are a

ulty in the appeded clai. The pret invention, pa of pael cr be 52, 54. The cr be 52,

both as to its orgaon and maer of opetion, is 54 hold the support membe 40, 42 in a fi pael

be underto by reference to the followig desp- chel tht are 2 inch wie wi 1 i-inch sides, and
tin, taen in connection with the acmpayig drw- may be afed to the supprt membe 40, 42 usg
includg a preferred emboiment of the pret inven- sttu stay of the ma fr asbly 32.

together with fuer objects and advantages, may bet reonsp. The cros be 52, 54 may be ste u-

ings. bolts or weldig. A pa of st supprt ro 56 are
FIG. 1 is a persve view of a recretion vehcle 20 angled betwee th cr be 52, 54 to incre the

tion, pay shown in phatom; A sutatiy sq s1dale support asbly 60 is
FIG. 2 is a pepetive view of a preferr embo- s1dably retaed in th support membe 40, 42. The
FIG. 3 is a plan view of the preferred emboiment of 25 be 62, a pa of ra 64, and a support be 66 afed

ment of the s1de-out asmbly; sldaly support asbly 60 includes a tron

the slde-ut asbly; to the ra 64 usg support flges 68. The ra are FIG. 4 is a pepeve view of a prefered emboi- afed to the ends of the tron be 62 and to
ment of a seg asmbly of the prest invention in an the support flges 68 for holdig. the trion

open position; be 62 and support be 66 in a fied pael potion.
prefered emboiment of the seg asmbly in an so they may be s1daly retaed in the hollow support
seg asmbly in a seled poition; and thugh the support members 40, 42.

FIG. 5 is a par cros-setiona view showing the 30 The ral 64 may be 75 inches long and 2 inches squae

op confguation; members 40, 42. The support members' ste roners 48, FIG. 6 is a paal cross-setional view showig the 50 ence the ea with which th ras 64 slde

FIG. 7 is a side elevate pa crossetional view 35 The support be 66 may be a formed Cchael 31
of the prest invention in a storage potion. inches wide with 2-inch sides. The support be 66 may

DESCRIPTION OF TH PREFED

be two sepate setion, depndig upon mountig

nees. The . EMBODIMNTS 3-inch porton of angledtrmion The lengt of the cros stel. be 62 may be a 3-inch by

The followig desription is provided to enable any 40 be 52, 54, support be 66, an trion be

persn skiled. in the recreationa vehicle maufactunng 62 may var, depdig upon the desir lengt of the ar to mae and us the invention and sets fort the bet room. modes conteplated by the inventor of cag out hi A trssion mecham 70 is mounte at a ceter
invention. V mous modifcations, however, wi rema porton of the cros be 52 locte clos to the tr
generc pnnciples of the prest invention have be a motor 72, such as an elecmc motor, an an elongate
defied herei.

rey appaent to those sked in th ar since the 45 mion be 62. The tron mecha includes
nomica proc for maufactug a slidable room of an an opeg 76 in the cros be 52, and exds though
Refergto FIG. 1, there is shown a recretiona SO gea 74 couples to th motor 72 thoughasiel

specicay to provide a relatively ce worm gea 74. The worm gea 74 is dipo thugh
couplig

improved strctue on a production bas. an opeg 78 in the tron be 62. The worm

s1dale rom 10 consct acrdig to the pnnci- welded in the tron be's opeg 78 to rotatmae integr with a top edge 16 and side edges 18 of an sleeve 82.

vehcle (R V) 5, includig a preferred emboent of a 80 mounte. in the opeg 76. A dieaed sleeve 82 is

pies of the presnt invention. The slidable rom 10 ably couple the wor ge 74 to the tron be inludes a slide-ut asbly 12 for extdig an con- 62. A gea support 84 is afed to the tron be
trtig the room. A fit liquid seg asmbly 14 is '5 62 for supportg the worm gea 74 and the theaed

exern wal 20 of the rom 10. The wal 20 is lager An elecc .cale 86 is locte in eah ra 64 for
th .an opeg 28 in the exor wal 30 of the RV. A providig elecca curt

to the rom 10 thugh

send liquid seg asmbly 22 is mae integr with junction boxes 88. A pa of caer cha !I ca the
a top edge 24 and side edges 26 of the opeg 28 in the 60 cale 86 into the ra 64 for preventig the cale 86

exrior wal 30 of the RV 5. frm bindig or bemig daged when the slidable A preferred emboiment of the slde-ut asbly 12 support asmbly 60 is movig. Since the cable 86 is
is shown in FIGS. 2 and 3. The slide-out asmbly 12 locted in the ra 64, the cable 86 is al prevented

includes a stationar ma frame asmbly 32 afed to from being daaged by envionmenta elements when
chais membe 34 of

the RV 5. The ma frame asm- 65 the rom 10 is extended and when the RV 5 is beg

bly 32 includes two pairs of support bes 36, 38 that trrt.

alixng the slide-out asbly 12 to the RV 5. The bly 14 and the send liquid seg asmbly 22 con-

may be bolte or welded to the cha members 34 for FIGS. 4, 5, and 6 show the fit liquid seing asse-

Case 1:06-cv-00762-JJF

Document 32-3

Filed 10/05/2007

Page 9 of 11

stte acrdig to th preferred emboent 10. nor wal 22 is flus with the RV's extnor wa 30 to
The fit liquid seg asbly 14 is mae integral ence the aesthetics of the RV 5.

5 6
5,237,782

the top edge 16 and side edges 18 of the room's The rom 10 is exded away from the RV 5 by wi exor wal 20. The send seg asbly is made energig the motor 72. The motor 72 rota th
integr with the top edge 24 an side edges 26 of the 5 worm gea 74 in the desed diection to draw the sld-

substatiy retagu opeg 28 in th RV's exte. able support asbly 60 towar the ma frae as-

rir wal 30.. sembly 32, thus extdig the rom 10 away frm th
The fi seg asbly 14 includes a fit L-pe RV 5. The ma floor's roller 12 increa the ea

shoulder 92 that exds along the rom's top edge 16 with which the rom 10 trvel ~ th~ RV's ma an side edges 18. A fi L- flge membe 94 is 10 floor 12. The st roller 48, 50 ai th ra 64 as they afed to th L-pe shoulder 92. The flge mebe sle th~gh the support mem 40, 42. Wh the

94 includes an elong end porton 96 tht exds ~ 10 ~ fuy exed fr the RV 5~ a curt
uiy away frm the rom's exor wal 20. The litig swh (not shown) se the exceve Clent
flge membe 94 al ha a plurty of protrons 98 drw and shuts of! the motor 72. ~ .room ~O IS re

th exd away from the shoulde 92. An elongate 15 tr by al~tlg th cuent litig swtch an

flexible ndge se 100 is af to the fit flge mem- rev~y energig the motor 72 to al~ the an~e of
bes elongate porton 96. A flexile ndge bulb se 102 rotaUon of the wo~ gea 74, for pusg the ~dable

is af betwee a pa of the flge meber's protr- supprt asbly 60 mto th RV 5 for COtrg the
The send seg asbly 22 includes a send ra 64.and support ~~, be .~e loa of

. mon 98 locte on an elougate porton 104 of the 20 roThm 10. rt he 40 4" . mbin .th th

exr wal's shoulder 92. e suppo mem , *' m co on WI e th r~i;
108 IS afed to the s,nd L-pe ~oulder 106.

L-shpe sh uld 106 i ta to the fi L- 10, whie the rom 10 IS II ~tion ~d wh~ it IS

o er camp emen exded. Thus the tron mecha 70 IS not
!he 25 mecha 70 are not ex to envimnenta ele-

sh~ shulder 92. A send L-pe flge membe loa-beg. The elecca cable 86 and tron
flge member 108 mcludes a plurty of prtrions ments suc as wate and ro gre, sice the cale 86
A pa of

110 tht exted away from the shoulder 106. is reted in th ra 64 and the tron mechathe send flge i;embe's protrions 110, ni 70 is ret in th RV 5.

locte on an elongate ~rton ~12 of th~ send L- The above featues of the prest invention teh
~pe shoulder 106, are algned with the: pa of protru- 30 appatu method and an improved slidale rom havmons. 98 l~te on the elongated. porton 1~ of the ing an improved slde-ut asbly for slig the room

exnor ~al s shoulder 92. The pai of p~Otron 98, and an improved seg asbly to prevent liquid
110 are al~ed so tht when the ~oom 10 IS cople~ly from flowig between the rom and the rectiona
~ntr mto the RY 5 (shown m FIG. 6), the flexble vehicle. It ca be rey apprete tht it would be

ndge bulb se 102 IS compres betwee the fit 35 poible to devite from the abve embocuts of the
adjacnt pai of protrons 98, 100 exted mto the thos sked in the ar the invention is caable of may

fl~ge mem~ 94 and ~nd flge member ~08. The prent invention and, as wi be rey understo by
compres bulb se 102, thus pinchig copres mÒdcations and improvemcuts with the scpe and

ends.114 of the bulb se 102 w prvent liquid from spirt thereof. Accrdgly, it wi be under tht
A flexble wiper 116 is afed to an end 118 of the cla.

floWlg betwee the rirt and send flange mebe 40 the invcution is not to be lite by the spec embo94, 108. mcuts but only by the spirt and scpe of the appeed
seud flange membe 108 tht exteds pael to a side Wht is cled is:

wa 12 of the rom 10. The wiper 116 exds away 1. In a sldable room for us with a housg asbly frm the send flge member's cud 118 and perp- 45 havig an openig with a top edge and side edges hav.
dicul theret and abuts the room's side wal 12. ing an inteor and an exnor side for revig the

When the rom 10 is beg exded or contrte, the sldale room, the slidale rom havig an exnor wall wipe 116 wipe liquid from the room's side wal 12. with a top edge and side edges havi an inteor and an
FIG. 7 shows a cr-son of the invente sldable exor side, th improvement comprig:

room