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

Case 1:06-cv-00762-JJF

Document 27

Filed 09/14/2007

Page 1 of 14

Case 1:06-cv-00762-JJF

Document 27

Filed 09/14/2007

Page 2 of 14

Case 1:06-cv-00762-JJF

Document 27

Filed 09/14/2007

Page 3 of 14

Case 1:06-cv-00762-JJF

Document 27

Filed 09/14/2007

Page 4 of 14

Case 1:06-cv-00762-JJF

Document 27

Filed 09/14/2007

Page 5 of 14

Case 1:06-cv-00762-JJF

Document 27

Filed 09/14/2007

Page 6 of 14

Case 1:06-cv-00762-JJF

Document 27

Filed 09/14/2007

Page 7 of 14

Case 1:06-cv-00762-JJF

Document 27

Filed 09/14/2007

Page 8 of 14

Case 1:06-cv-00762-JJF

Document 27

Filed 09/14/2007

Page 9 of 14

Case 1:06-cv-00762-JJF

Document 27

Filed 09/14/2007

Page 10 of 14

Case 1:06-cv-00762-JJF

Document 27

Filed 09/14/2007

Page 11 of 14

Case 1:06-cv-00762-JJF

Document 27

Filed 09/14/2007

Page 12 of 14

Case 1:06-cv-00762-JJF

Document 27

Filed 09/14/2007

Page 13 of 14

Case 1:06-cv-00762-JJF

Document 27

Filed 09/14/2007

Page 14 of 14

Case 1:06-cv-00762-JJF

Document 27-2

Filed 09/14/2007

Page 1 of 15

Case 1:06-cv-00762-JJF

Document 27-2

Filed 09/14/2007

Page 2 of 15

Case 1:06-cv-00762-JJF

Document 27-2

Filed 09/14/2007

Page 3 of 15

Case 1:06-cv-00762-JJF

Document 27-2

Filed 09/14/2007

Page 4 of 15

Case 1:06-cv-00762-JJF

Document 27-2

Filed 09/14/2007

Page 5 of 15

Case 1:06-cv-00762-JJF

Document 27-2

Filed 09/14/2007

Page 6 of 15

Case 1:06-cv-00762-JJF

Document 27-2

Filed 09/14/2007

Page 7 of 15

Case 1:06-cv-00762-JJF

Document 27-2

Filed 09/14/2007

Page 8 of 15

Case 1:06-cv-00762-JJF

Document 27-2

Filed 09/14/2007

Page 9 of 15

Case 1:06-cv-00762-JJF

Document 27-2

Filed 09/14/2007

Page 10 of 15

Case 1:06-cv-00762-JJF

Document 27-2

Filed 09/14/2007

Page 11 of 15

Case 1:06-cv-00762-JJF

Document 27-2

Filed 09/14/2007

Page 12 of 15

Case 1:06-cv-00762-JJF

Document 27-2

Filed 09/14/2007

Page 13 of 15

Case 1:06-cv-00762-JJF

Document 27-2

Filed 09/14/2007

Page 14 of 15

Case 1:06-cv-00762-JJF

Document 27-2

Filed 09/14/2007

Page 15 of 15

Case 1:06-cv-00762-JJF

Document 27-3

Filed 09/14/2007

Page 1 of 93

EXHIBIT 1

Case 1:06-cv-00762-JJF

Document 27-3

Filed 09/14/2007
US005791715A

Page 2 of 93

1111111111111111111111111,111111111111111111111111111111

1111111111111111111

United States Patent
Nebel

[19]

[11]

[45]

Patent Number: Date of Patent:

5,791,715
Aug. 11, 1998

[54] EXTENSION MECHANISM FOR TRAVEL TRAILER SLIDE-OUT ROOMS
[76] Inventor: Michael W. Nebel. Route 3. Box 6-A. Smith Center. Kans. 66967

OTHER PUBLICATIONS Drawings of Slideout Mechanism #1. Peterson Industries. Inc.. Smith Center. Kansas. showing slide-out mechanism which was on sale and in public use more than one year prior to the filing date of this application. (No Date). Drawings of Slideout Mechanism #2, Peterson Industries. Inc., Smith Center, Kansas. showing slide-out mechanism which was on sale and in public use more than one year prior to the filing date of this application. (No Date).

[21] [22] [51] [52] [58] [56]

Appl. No.: 754,872 Filed:
6

Nov. 22, 1996

Int. Cl. ····.···..··.······.···.··.··..········.·····.·········. B60P3135 U.S. Cl·............................ 296/26; 296/171; 296/175; 52/67 Field of Search 296/165. 170. 296/171. 172. 175. 176.26.27; 52/67
References Cited U.S. PATENT DOCUMENTS

Primary Examiner-Dean Kramer Attorney; Agent, or Finn-Litman, McMahon. & Brown.

L.L.c.
[57]

ABSTRACT

Re.32,262 10/1986 Stewart. 2,225,319 12/1940 Rollo. 2,606,057 8/1952 Johnson. 2,820,666 111958 Grochmal. 3,512,315 5/1970 Vitalini 3,572,809 3/1971 Buland 4,312,159 1/1982 Paul. 4,500,132 2/1985 Yoder. 5,237,782 8/1993 Cooper. 5,332,276 7/1994 Blodgett, Jr.. 5,333,420 8/1994 Eden. 5,491,933 2/1996 Miller. 5,577,351 1lI1996 Dewald, Jr. et aI 5,620,224 4/1997 DiBiagio et aI

52/67 2%/26

A slide-out mechanism for selectively extending and retracting a slide-out room through a slide-out room opening in a wall which automatically levels or aligns the slide-out room relative to the slide-out room opening in the wall comprises at least one stationary member. a retractable member slidably secured to the stationary member, and a threshold bracket for securing and supporting a front end of the stationary member on an upper surface of a portion of the wall defining a lower edge of the slide-out room opening. A support leg is preferably secured to a rear end of the stationary member for supporting the rear end thereof. The support leg is preferably height adjustable to permit leveling of the rear end of the stationary member relative to the front end.

296/171 296/165

24 Claims, 3 Drawing Sheets

4
135
IZ~

11r--J--:;;;-:::::=;;;~'iF==========:;=::=;;;J==~~;n==1J
96

142.

ICJ

'18

Case 1:06-cv-00762-JJF

Document 27-3

Filed 09/14/2007

Page 3 of 93

u.s. Patent

Aug. 11, 1998

Sheet 1 of 3

5,791,715

.,-t

·

.~
~ N

·

.~
~

· ·

Case 1:06-cv-00762-JJF

Document 27-3

Filed 09/14/2007

Page 4 of 93

u.s. Patent

Aug. 11, 1998

Sheet 2 of 3

5,791,715

o

f1"
I

,

N
N

- - - - ---

-1"~1---

.... -

'I I, I ::: I [, I II I' 'I II I: r
I'

I I I

I- -

r - - - - -I
I
I

t

---1= ==r=~-=----'
I , I I I

.~
~

· ~ ·

I I
I I

-

-

-

- , Ir-, , ;Ir:----'

I :' II II
I

II
~

II

I I ::' I

:::1 ",
:1

'::1

,1

I
~
r()

I,' ,\ I,' I:' l/'l I" N
,IL"",

I I

I
I I
I

I

I

" 1'1 1'1

I I,

,II

II'

II: I I II, "',i- I

I I I
1

~,

I

I

,
I\a
It'l

I:' ",

I'I

o -~ C\I

'II II "'I I I I, I II I

'::1

'I

I
I
I I-

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ L..!.

II iL~1

I I II I I I' II

II 'I I

I I I I
_..J

I
I I

, II
, 'I

1:',,- ... tn , ,:, ' ..
I

&1\

I
I
\

.1-.d.

_

_ _ _ _ .J..

-

-

.."
..

I:'"
I 'I
I

~ C\I
..
I
_

1:1 I'l

,,
o aI

_ _ _ .1._-_~_=_=_-J =-_ ...1
"f

:C.r

-

.: N

I

.~
~

fJ:)

· ·

o

t-..

·

.~ ~

·

Case 1:06-cv-00762-JJF

Document 27-3

Filed 09/14/2007

Page 5 of 93

u.s. Patent

Aug. 11, 1998

Sheet 3 of 3

5,791,715

Case 1:06-cv-00762-JJF

Document 27-3

Filed 09/14/2007

Page 6 of 93

5.791.715
1
EXTENSION MECHANISM FOR TRAVEL TRAILER SLIDE-OUT ROOMS

2

Most slide-out rooms include some form of inner sealing flange extending perpendicular to the sides and top of the slide-out room along the rear or inner end thereof. When the BACKGROUND OF THE INVENfION slide-out room is fully extended. the inner sealing flange 5 engages and pushes against an inner surface of the sidewall 1. Field of the Invention of the trailer around the slide-out opening. Similarly. an The present invention relates to mechanisms for selecouter sealing flange. present on most slide-out rooms tively extending and withdrawing slide-out portions of a engages and pushes against an outer surface of the sidewall travel trailer or the like. of the trailer when the room is fully retracted. Over time. the 2. Prior Art 10 repetitive exertion of these inwardly and outwardly directed forces against the sidewall results in the sidewall being Slide-out rooms or compartments in travel trailers. motor pulled away from the frame. homes and the like have become increasingly popular. The slide-out rooms allow for increased useable space when the Therefore. there is a need for a slide-out mechanism that vehicle is parked and are retractable to accommodate width is generally self leveling relative to the slide-out room limitations while in transit. 15 opening and which reduces the stresses applied to the sidewall of the trailer through repeated extension and retracA significant problem with currently available slide-out tion of the slide-out room relative thereto. room mechanisms is that the manner of attachment of the mechanisms to the trailer often results in the slide-out room SUMMARY OF THE INVENTION being mounted in a non-square orientation relative to the slide-out room hole or opening in a sidewall of the vehicle. 20 The present invention comprises a slide-out mechanism The non-square orientation of the slide-out room relative to for selectively extending and retracting a slide-out room the slide-out room opening causes binding when the room is through a slide-out room opening in a wall which automatiretracted or extended through the opening and causes probcally levels or aligns the slide-out room relative to the lems sealing around the slide-out room. slide-out room opening in the wall. A front end of the In most travel trailers. motor homes or similar vehicles. 25 slide-out mechanism is adapted to be supported on an upper surface of a portion of the wall defining a lower edge of the the sidewalls of the vehicle are generally fabricated as a slide-out room opening so as to automatically level or align single piece prior to attachment to the frame of the vehicle. the slide-out mechanism relative to the slide-out room Because of controlled assembly conditions. the edges of the sidewalls. including the edges of a slide-out room opening 30 opening. The portion of the wall defining a lower edge of the slide-out room opening may hereinafter be referred to as the formed therein. are generally square relative to one another. sill of the slide-out room opening. However. for various reasons. when the sidewalls are secured to the vehicle frame the edges of the sidewalls. and The mechanism comprises at least one stationary member. in particular the edges of the slide out room opening. may a support bracket secured to a front end of the stationary not be square with the edges of the frame or the floor 35 member and a slidable member slidably mounted relative to supported on the frame. This is a common problem for the the stationary member. The front end of the stationary upper portion of the floor and frame in fifth-wheel or member is adapted to be supported on the upper surface of gooseneck type trailers. the sill by the support bracket. The slide-out room is securable to the slidable member for slidable advancement The frames of gooseneck type trailers are rarely welded together precisely. Therefore. the frame and floor portion 40 through the slide-out room opening. A support member is preferably secured to a rear end of the stationary member for above the gooseneck are almost never parallel with the supporting the rear end thereof. The support member is frame and floor portion below the gooseneck. When a preferably height adjustable to permit leveling of the rear sidewall is mounted to the frame. the lower edge of the end of the stationary member relative to the front end. portion of the sidewall below the gooseneck is generally aligned with the portion of the frame below the gooseneck 45 In a preferred embodiment the stationary member comsuch that the lower edge of the portion of the sidewall above prises two rails spaced apart in parallel alignment. The the gooseneck is not square with the portions of the frame support bracket is secured to and extends between the two and floor above the gooseneck. Similarly. the edges of a rails and the slidable member comprises a slide plate slidslide-out room opening above the gooseneck usually are not ably mounted to the two rails and extending therebetween. square with the portions of the frame and floor above the 50 The support bracket further includes an outer lip for engaggooseneck. ing an outer surface of the wall through which the slide-out room opening extends and inner lips for engaging an inner Most slide-out mechanisms mount directly to the frame. generally below the floor, and the slide-out room is mounted surface of the wall. The outer and inner lips anchor the rails to the slide-out mechanism such that the slide-out room is to the wall. generally mounted square relative to the frame and floor. 55 OBJECTS AND ADVANfAGES OF THE When the slide-out room opening is not positioned square INVENfION with the frame and the floor. the slide out room. mounted to the frame by the slide-out mechanism, does not sit or extend Therefore it is an object of this invention to provide a squarely into the slide-out room opening. The non-square slide-out mechanism which automatically aligns a slide-out orientation of the slide-out room relative to the slide-out 60 room secured thereto relative to a slide-out room opening in room opening causes the slide-out room to bind relative to a wall; to provide such a mechanism which maintains the the slide-out room opening as the room is extended and slide-out room square relative to the slide-out opening retracted therethrough and increases the difficulty in obtainthrough which the slide-out room is to be advanced: to ing a proper seal around the slide-out room. provide such a mechanism in which a front end thereof is Another problem associated with existing slide-out 65 adapted to be supported across at least a portion an upper mechanisms is the stress placed on the sidewall of the surface of a sill of the slide-out room opening; to provide vehicle through which the room is extended and retracted. such a mechanism which is adapted to engage inner and

Case 1:06-cv-00762-JJF

Document 27-3

Filed 09/14/2007

Page 7 of 93

5.791.715

3
outer surfaces of the wall adjacent the slide-out room opening for anchoring the mechanism thereto; to provide such a mechanism in which a rear end of the mechanism is height adjustable; to provide such a mechanism which facilitates obtaining a weather tight seal around the slide-out room in an extended or retracted alignment; to provide such a mechanism which is sold already assembled and ready for installation; to provide such a mechanism which is easy to install; to provide such a mechanism which may be installed relatively quickly; and to provide such a mechanism which is relatively inexpensive. Other objects and advantages of this invention will become apparent from the following description taken in conjunction with the accompanying drawings wherein are set forth. by way of illustration and example. certain embodiments of this invention. The drawings constitute a part of this specification and include exemplary embodiments of the present invention and illustrate various objects and features thereof.
BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF THE DRAWINGS

4
opening 3 is defined by an upper surface 8 of a portion of the wall 4 which may be referred to as the sill 9 of the slide-out room opening 3. The wall 4 includes inner surface 10 and outer surface n. The slide-out room 2 is secured relative to the wall above a frame 14 and floor 15 of the trailer 1. A slide-out mechanism 19 of the present invention is shown in FIG. 2, secured within the slide-out room opening 3 of the trailer 1. The slide-out mechanism 19 includes a support bracket or threshold bracket 20. first and second rails 21 and 22. slide plate or slide member 23. and first and second support legs 24 and 25. The rails 21 and 22 are preferably formed from square tubing secured together in parallel and spaced apart relation. First or front ends 31 and 32 of rails 21 and 22 respectively are secured together by cross-brace 34 welded to and extending therebetween. The threshold bracket 20 is secured to the front ends 31 and 32 ofthe rails 21 and 22 respectively by bolting the threshold bracket 20 to the front cross-brace 34. A rear cross brace 35 is welded to and extends between second or rear ends 37 and 38 of the rails 21 and 22. The threshold bracket 20 is sized to span the entire width of the slide-outroom opening 3 and is adapted for placement across the sill 9 of the slide-out room opening 3 to support the rails 21 and 22 thereby. The threshold bracket 20 includes web 43. front depending leg or outer lip 44 and rear depending leg 45 which is bolted to the front cross brace 34. The web 43. includes a front portion 46 and a rear portion 47. When the threshold bracket 20 is positioned across the sill 9. the rear portion 47 generally extends horizontally and the front portion 46 angles slightly downward from horizontal. approximately fifteen degrees toward the front thereof. The web 43 generally engages the upper surface 8 of the sill 9 along a front edge 48 thereof. The outer lip 44 engages the outer surface 11 of the wall 4 just below the slide-out room opening 3 and preferably spans the entire length of the slide-out room opening 3. The web 43. across the rear portion 47 and part of the front portion 4fi. is slightly wider than the slide-out room opening 3 and the front lip 44 so as to generally form first and second extensions 51 and 52. First and second inner lips or shoulders 53 and 54 extend downward from the first and second extensions 51 and 52 respectively. The first and second inner shoulders 53 and 54 are spaced behind the front lip 44 a distance equal to the thickness of the wall 4 such that when the threshold bracket 20 is positioned on the sill 9 the first and second inner shoulders 53 and 54 engage the inner surface 10 of the wall 4 on opposite sides of the slide-out room opening 3. The threshold bracket 20 is preferably formed from relatively thick steel. such as ten gauge steel. with an aluminum cover. The rigidity of the steel is sufficient to support the weight of the front end of the slide-out room mechanism 19 across the front edge 48 of the threshold bracket 20 without deflection of the bracket 20 downward. First and second triangular supports 57 and 58 (only one of which is shown in FIG. 6) may be formed along the opposite ends of the web 43. extending from the front lip 44 to the first and second inner shoulders 53 and 54 respectively. The supports 57 and 58 provide extra rigidity to the threshold bracket 20 and lower edges thereof also engage the upper surface 8 of the sill 9. The front portion 46 of the web 43 is angled downward to facilitate the draining away of any moisture blown between the slide-out room 2 and the threshold bracket 20. The threshold bracket 20 is covered with aluminum to resist

5

10

15

20

FIG. 1 is a fragmentary perspective view of a fifth wheel trailer with a slide-out room shown extended through a slide-out room opening in a sidewall thereof. FIG. 2 is a perspective view of a slide-out mechanism of the present invention shown supported across the sill of a slide-out room opening by a threshold bracket. FIG. 3 is an enlarged and fragmentary cross-sectional view of the trailer taken along line 3-3 of FIG. 1 showing the slide-out mechanism in phantom lines beneath a bed frame which is secured to the slide-out mechanism. FIG. 4 is an enlarged and fragmentary cross-sectional view taken along line 4--4 of FIG. 3 with portions broken away to show detail and showing the slide-out room fully extended through the slide-out opening by the slide-out mechanism. FIG. 5 is a view similar to FIG. 4 showing the slide-out room fully retracted through the slide-out opening by the slide-out mechanism. FIG. 6 is an enlarged and fragmentary perspective view of an end of the threshold bracket. FIG. 7 is an enlarged and fragmentary cross-sectional view taken along line 7-7 of FIG. 2. FIG. 8 is an enlarged and fragmentary perspective view of an adjustable leg of the slide-out mechanism.
DErAILED DESCRIPTION OF THE INVENTION

25

30

35

4()

45

50

As required. detailed embodiments of the present invention are disclosed herein; however. it is to be understood that the disclosed embodiments are merely exemplary of the invention, which may be embodied in various forms. Therefore, specific structural and functional details disclosed herein are not to be interpreted as limiting. but merely as a basis for the claims and as a representative basis for teaching one skilled in the art to variously employ the present invention in virtually any appropriately detailed structure. Referring to the drawings in more detail, FIG. 1 shows a portion of a fifth wheel trailer 1 having a slide-out room 2 mounted in a slide-out room opening or hole 3 in a wall 4 thereof.The slide-out room 2 is mounted relative to a portion of the wall 4 above the gooseneck 5 of the trailer 1. Referring to FIG. 4. a lower edge of the slide-out room

55

60

65

Case 1:06-cv-00762-JJF

Document 27-3

Filed 09/14/2007

Page 8 of 93

5,791.715

5

6

corrosion and present a more attractive finish. The dependBottom plate extenders 98 and 99 are welded to the slide ing leg 45 of the threshold bracket 20 is spaced behind the plate 23 on each side thereof so as extend rearwardly from first and second inner shoulders 53 and 54 a distance to the respective bottom plate 92 and 93 in axial alignment accommodate a frame member 14 which may extend above therewith. Each bottom plate extender 98 and 99 is preferthe floor 15 depending upon the manufacturer's preference. 5 ably formed from angle iron including a horizontal leg 100. The first and second support legs 24 and 25 are secured which extends in axial alignment with the respective bottom proximate the rear ends 31 and 32 of the first and second plate 92 and 93 and generally forms an extension thereof. rails 21 and 22 respectively. Each support leg 24 and 25 and a vertical leg 101 on an outer side thereof. The rack comprises a slotted flange 65. secured to and depending gears 96 and 97 each preferably extend from a front end of from the rear cross brace 35 at either end thereof proximate 10 the slide plate 23 past a rear end thereof and across a one of the rails 21 and 22. and a slotted angle member 66 substantial portion of the respective bottom plate extender secured to a respective slotted flange 65. The angle member 98 and 99. The rack gears 96 and 97 are also secured to the includes a vertical leg 67 and a horizontal leg 68. Vertical bottom plate extenders 98 and 99. The bottom plates 92 and extending slots 72 and 73 are formed in the flanges 65 and 93 and the respective bottom plate extenders 98 and 99 are the vertical leg 67 of the angle members 66. The vertical leg 15 secured together for slidable movement relative to the rails 67 of the angle member 66 is secured to an associated flange 21 and 22 respectively. 65 by a carriage bolt 75 extending through aligned slots 72 First and second spur gears 102 and 103 are mounted in and 73. The length of the legs 24 and 25 is adjustable by engaging relationship with the rack gears 96 and 97 respecsliding the vertical leg 67 of the angle member 66 relative to tively. The spur gears 102 and 103 are connected together by the flange 65 and then tightening down the carriage bolt 75. The horizontal leg 68 of each angle member 66 includes a 20 drive shaft assembly 105. The drive shaft assembly 105 is driven by a reversible electric motor 106 through transmisslot 76 therein for driving a screw or the like therethrough sion 107. The motor 106 and transmission 107 are mounted for securing the horizontal leg 68 to the floor 15 of the trailer to an inner surface 109 of the second rail 22 by motor 1. bracket 110. After the threshold bracket 20 is positioned across the sill 25 A first end of the drive shaft assembly 105 is rotatably 9 of the slide-out room opening 3. so as to support the front supported, proximate the first spur gear 102. by a first end of the slide-out mechanism 19 thereacross, the height of bearing 115 (not shown) which is mounted to a bearing the rear ends 37 and 38 of the rails 21 and 22 respectively support bracket 116 mounted to an inner surface 117 of the may be adjusted to level the rails 21 and 22 relative to the first rail 21. A second end of the drive shaft assembly 105. front ends 31 and 32 by adjusting the length or height of the legs 24 and 25. Independent adjustment of the height of the 30 is rotatably supported, proximate the second spur gear 103. by a second bearing 118 which is mounted to the motor rear ends 37 and 38 may be necessary because the floor 15 bracket 110. may not be square or level relative to the slide-out room The electric motor 106. the transmission 107. the drive opening 3. Securing the front end of the slide-out mechanism 19 across the sill 9 using the threshold bracket 20 35 shaft assembly 105. spur gears 102 and 103 and the rack gears 96 and 97 generally comprise a drive assembly or ensures that the front end of the slide-out mechanism is means for slidably advancing the slide plate 23 relative to square or level with the slide-out room opening 3. The the rails 21 and 22 both forward and rearward. It is foreseen independent adjustability of the height of the legs 24 and 25 that a wide variety of drive means well known in the allows for adjustments in the height of the rear end of the slide-out mechanism 19 to ensure that the rear end and 40 industry could be utilized for advancing the slide plate 23 or its equivalent relative to the rails 21 and 22 or their therefore the entire slide-out mechanism 19 is square or equivalent. such as hydraulic pistons. chain drives. screw level with the slide-out room opening 3. gears. scissor jacks or manual means. The slide plate 23 includes a top plate 80 which extends As the spur gears 102 and 103 rotate to drive the slide across and between the first and second rails 21 and 22. The top plate 80 includes a large cutout portion 81 to reduce the 45 plate 23 forward the outer lip 44 of the threshold bracket pulls against the outer surface 11 of the wall 4. As the spur amount of material necessary. Front and rear edges or strips gears 102 and 103 rotate to drive the slide plate rearward. the 82 and 83 of the top plate are bent downward to provide inner shoulders S3 and S4 push against the inner surface 10 greater rigidity to the top plate 80. of the wall 4. As shown in FIG. 7. with respect to the second rail 22. Extending the rack gears 96 and 97 rearward of the rear opposite sides of the slide plate 23 generally wrap around 50 edge 83 of the slide plate 23perrnits a longer effective stroke outer sides 86 and 87 of the rails 21 and 22 respectively and of the slide plate 23 relative to the rails 21 and 22 while across bottoms 88 and 89 thereof to slidably secure the slide minimizing the amount of material utilized in the slide plate plate 23 to the rails 21 and 22. In particular. opposite sides 23. Because the support legs 24 and 25 are mounted on the of the slide plate 23 include side plates 90 and 91 and bottom plates 92 and 93 respectively. The side plates 90 and 91 55 rear cross brace 3S and because the sides of the slide plate 23 only wrap around the outer sides 86 and 87 and the extend across respective outer side 86 and 87 of the rails 21 bottoms 88 and 89 of the rails 21 and 22 respectively. and and 22 and the bottom plates 92 and 93 extend across the not the inner surfaces 109 and 117 thereof. at least a portion bottoms 88 and 89 thereof. of the slide plate 23 can be advanced past the rear ends 37 Rack gears 96 and 97 are mounted to the bottom plates 92 and 93 respectively on each side of the slide plate 23 and 60 and 38 of the rails 21 and 22. This feature of the slide-plate 23, which may be referred to as a bypass feature. allows for extend in axial alignment to the respective rail 21 and 22. It a longer stroke length of the slide-plate 23 without having to is foreseen that a cheaper but equally effective alternative to increase the length of the rails 21 and 22. the rack gears 96 and 97 would be to mount to the bottom plates 92 and 93 ladder gears comprising elongate rectanThe slide-out mechanism 19. is particularly well adapted gular plates having a succession of holes punched therein in 65 for use with slide-out rooms 2 utilized to provide expandable axial alignment and spaced apart a distance corresponding to sleeping quarters. FIGS. 3. 4 and S show the slide-out the width of the teeth of the rack gears 96 and 97. mechanism 19 with a slide-out room 2 and a bed or bed

Case 1:06-cv-00762-JJF

Document 27-3

Filed 09/14/2007

Page 9 of 93

5.791.715
7
frame 125 secured thereto for retractable movement through the slide-out room opening 3. The slide-out room 2 and bed frame 125 are shown fully extended in FIG. 4 and fully retracted in FIG. 5, By utilizing the slide-out feature with respect to the sleeping quarters. a longer bed 125 can be utilized while providing for walking space at the foot of the bed 125 when the slide-out room 2 is fully extended. The slide-out room 2 includes outer wall panel 130. side panels 131 and 132. floor panel 133. outer sealing flange 134 and inner sealing flange 135. The bed frame 125 includes side panels 141 and 142. head panel 143. foot panel 144. top panel 145 and bottom panel 146. The bottom panel 146 is adapted to be supported on and secured to the slide plate 23. The bottom panel 146 may be secured to the slide plate 23. between the rails 21 and 22. by screws or the like. A front portion of the bottom panel 146 is positioned under and secured to a rear portion of the floor panel 133 of the slide-out room 2 by screws or the like. The portions of the side panels 141 and 142 of the bed frame 125 which extend rearward of the slide-out room 2. extend below the bottom panel 146 and almost to the floor 15 of the trailer 1 when secured to the slide-out mechanism 19. The head panel 143 of the bed frame 125 is secured to an inner surface of the outer wall panel 130 by screws or the like which ensures that the slide-out room 2 sits square relative to the bed frame 125. The bottom panel 146 of the bed frame 125 is preferably of the same width as the slide plate 23 such that inner surfaces of the side panels 141 and 142 engage the outer surfaces of the side plates 90 and 91 respectively of the slide plate 23 when the bed frame 125 is positioned on the slide-out mechanism 19. thereby ensuring that the bed frame 125 sits square relative to the slide-out mechanism 19. Assuming the relevant components of the slide-out mechanism 19. the slide-out room 2 and the bed frame 125 are all built square relative to each other. the slide-out room 2 should sit square or in alignment with the slide-out room opening 3. assuming the sides of the opening 3 are square and regardless of whether the opening 3 sits square or level with the frame 14 or floor 15 of the trailer 1. Access holes or openings (not shown) may be formed in the foot panel 144 of the bed frame 125 to provide access to the adjustable support legs 24 and 25 of the slide-out mechanism 19. Weather stripping or seals 148 well known in the art may be applied to an inner surface of the outer sealing flange 134 to form a weather tight seal when the slide-out room 2 is positioned in a retracted position. Similarly. weather stripping or seals 149 may be secured to an outer surface of the inner sealing flange 135 to form a weather tight seal when the slide-out room 2 is advanced to the extended position. The inner sealing flange 135 only extends across the sides and the top of the slide-out room 2 and not across the bottom thereof. To form a seal across the bottom of the slide-out room 2. when it is advanced to the extended position. a foam strip 150 (seen in crosssection in FlG. 5) may be secured to the lower surface of the floor panel 133 of the slide-out room 2 generally in planar alignment with the inner sealing flange 135. A layer of water repellentfabric 151 (not shown) is then secured across the lower surface of the floor panel 133 with the foam strip 150 extending therebetween. When the slideout room 2 is advanced to the extended position. the foam strip 150 engages the upper surface of the rear portion 47 of the web 43 so as to form a seal thereby. As the slide-out room 2 is advanced to the extended position. the gravitational force exerted on the front end thereof produces a torque on the slide-plate 23. The bed

8
frame side panels 132 and 133 are preferably secured to the vertical leg 100 of the bottom plate extenders 98 and 99 respectively to resist the torque on the slide-plate 23. Once the slide-out room 2 is fully extended. engagement of the inner surface 10 of the wall 4 by the inner sealing flange 135 reduces the torque on the slide-plate 23. In addition. engagement by the inner sealing flange 135 of the inner surface 10 of the wall 4 when the slide-out room 2 is advanced to the extended position. exerts an outwardly directed force on the wall 4. Engagement of the outer surface 11 of the wall 4 by the outer lip 44 of the threshold bracket 20 holds the wall 4 in place and resists or counteracts the outwardly directed force exerted by the inner sealing flange 135. Similarly engagement by the inner shoulders 53 and 54 of the inner surface 10 of the wall 4 counteracts the inwardly directed force exerted on the wall 4 by the outer sealing flange 134 when the slide-out room 2 is fully retracted. It is to be understood that while certain forms of the present invention have been illustrated and described herein. it is not to be limited to the specific forms or arrangement of parts described and shown. By way of example and not as a further limitation it is noted that. although the preferred embodiment of the slide-out mechanism 19 utilizes a pair of rails 31 and 32 with the slide-plate 23 slidably secured thereto. it is foreseen that the mechanism could comprise a single rail or three or more rails. Further. it is foreseen that the slide-out mechanism 19 could comprise a wide variety of structure in which one member is stationary and a second member. to which the slide-out room 2 is to be attached. is mounted for slidable movement relative to the stationary member. such as a tube within a tube or other systems known in the art or which may be hereafter developed. Although the preferred threshold bracket 20 is shown as a single bracket extending the entire width of the slide-out room opening 3. it is foreseen that the threshold bracket 20 could comprise a wide variety of forms. For example. a flange could be welded to the ends of each rail or stationary member so as to extend horizontally relative to the rail with the flange being adapted to be fastened to the upper surface 8 of the sill 9 to support the rail thereby and secure the rail to the wall 4. The bracket could also comprise an angle iron welded to the end of each rail so as to form a downwardly opening channel with the end of the rail such that when the bracket is positioned across the sill 9. a downwardly depending leg of the angel iron engages the outer surface 11 of the wall 4. a horizontally extending leg of the angle iron engages the upper surface 8 of the sill 9. and the end of the rail engages the inner surface 10 of the wall 4. 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. What is claimed and desired to be secured by Letters Patent is as follows: 1. An apparatus for selectively extending and retracting a slide-out room through a slide-out room opening in a wall of a first room. a portion of the wall comprising a sill having an upper surface which defines a lower edge of the slide-out room opening. the sill extending above a floor of the first room; said apparatus comprising: (a) at least one stationary member;

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

55

60

65

Case 1:06-cv-00762-JJF

Document 27-3

Filed 09/14/2007

Page 10 of 93

5.791.715
9
(b) means mounted proximate a first end of said stationary member for engaging the upper surface of the sill of the slide-out room opening and supporting said first end of said stationary member thereby; and (c) a moveable member slidably mounted relative to said stationary member and adapted for securement of the slide-out room thereto such that the slide-out room may be advanced through the slide-out room opening. 2. The apparatus as in claim 1 further comprising: (a) a height adjustable support member secured to said stationary member toward a second end thereof for supporting said second end of said stationary member. 3. The apparatus as in claim 1 further comprising: (a) drive means secured to said stationary member for slidably advancing said moveable member relative to said stationary member. 4. The apparatus as in claim 1 wherein said first end of said stationary member is supported by the upper surface of the sill of the slide-out room opening by: (a) a support bracket secured to said first end of said stationary member; said support bracket having an outer lip for engaging an outer surface of the wall and an inner lip for engaging an inner surface of the wall. 5. The apparatus as in claim 4 wherein: (a) said support bracket spans the width of the slide-out room opening. 6. The apparatus as in claim 5 wherein said support bracket includes: (a) a horizontally extending rear portion; and (b) a front portion which slopes downward toward a front end thereof. 7. An apparatus for selectively extending and retracting a slide-outroom through a slide-out room opening in a wall of a first room, a portion of the wall comprising a sill having an upper surface which defines a lower edge of the slide-out room opening. the sill extending above a floor of the first room; said apparatus comprising: (a) at least one rail adapted to be supported proximate a first end thereof by the upper surface of the sill of the slide-out room opening and extending perpendicular thereto; (b) a support member secured to said rail toward a second end thereof; and (c) a slide plate slidably mounted to said rail and adapted for securement of the slide-out room thereto such that the slide out room is slidably advanceable through the slide-out room opening. 8. The apparatus as in claim 7 wherein: (a) said support member supports said second end of said rail above the floor of said first room and is height adjustable for adjusting the height of said second end of said rail above the floor. 9. The apparatus as in claim 7 further comprising: (a) drive means secured to said rail for slidably advancing said slide plate relative to said rail. 10. The apparatus as in claim 7 wherein said first end of said rail is supported by the upper surface of the sill of the slide-out room opening by: (a) a support bracket secured to said first end of said rail; said support bracket having an outer lip for engaging an outer surface of the wall and an inner lip for engaging an inner surface of the wall. 11. The apparatus as in claim 10 wherein: (a) said support bracket spans the width of the slide-out room opening.

10
12. The apparatus as in claim 11 wherein said support bracket includes: (a) a horizontally extending rear portion; and (b) a front portion which slopes downward toward a front end thereof. 13. An apparatus for selectively extending and retracting a slide-out room through a slide-outroom opening in a wall; said apparatus comprising: (a) a first rail and a second rail each having a first end and a second end; (b) a threshold bracket secured to said first ends of said first and second rails and extending perpendicular thereto; said threshold bracket adapted to be positioned on and supported by an upper surface of a sill of the slide-out room opening; said threshold bracket further having an outer lip for engaging an outer surface of the wall and an inner lip for engaging an inner surface of the wall; (c) first and second support legs secured to said first and second rails respectively toward second ends thereof; and (d) a slide plate slidably mounted to said first and second rails and adapted for securement of the slide-out room thereto such that the slide-out room is slidingly advanceable through the slide-out room opening. 14. The apparatus as in claim 13 wherein said slide plate includes: (a) a top plate extending between and across said first and second rails; (b) first and second side plates extending across outer sides of said first and second rails respectively; (c) first and second bottom plates extending at least partially across bottoms of said first and second rails respectively; and (d) first and second racks mounted to said first and second bottom plates respectively and engaged by first and second spur gears rotatably mounted to said first and second rails respectively and mounted in engaging relationship with said first and second racks. 15. The apparatus as in claim 14 wherein said slide plate further comprises: (a) first and second bottom plate extenders secured to said first and second bottom plates respectively in axial alignment therewith and extending rearward therefrom and having portions of said first and second racks respectively secured thereto. 16. The apparatus as in claim 13 wherein said threshold bracket includes: (a) a horizontally extending rear portion; and (b) a front portion which slopes downward toward a front end thereof. 17. An apparatus for selectively extending and retracting a slide-out room through a slide-out room opening in a wall; said apparatus comprising: (a) at least one stationary member; (b) means mounted proximate a first end of said stationary member for engaging an upper surface of a sill of the slide-out room opening and supporting said first end of said stationary member thereby; (c) a moveable member slidably mounted relative to said stationary member and adapted for securement of the slide-out room thereto such that the slide-out room may be advanced through the slide-out room opening; and (d) a height adjustable support member secured to said stationary member toward a second end thereof for supporting said second end of said stationary member.

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

4D

45

50

55

60

65

Case 1:06-cv-00762-JJF

Document 27-3

Filed 09/14/2007

Page 11 of 93

5.791.715

11

12

18. An apparatus for selectively extending and retracting (c) a slide plate slidably mounted to said rail and adapted for securement of the slide-out room thereto such that a slide-out room through a slide-out room opening in a wall; the slide out room is slidably advanceable through the said apparatus comprising: slide-out room opening; and (a) at least one stationary member; (d) said support member supports said second end of said (b) means mounted proximate a first end of said stationary 5 rail above a floor of a first room relative to which said member for engaging an upper surface of a sill of the slide-out room extends and retracts; said support memslide-out room opening and supporting said first end of ber is height adjustable for adjusting the height of said said stationary member thereby; and second end of said rail above the floor. (c) a moveable member slidably mounted relative to said 10 22. An apparatus for selectively extending and retracting stationary member and adapted for securement of the a slide-out room through a slide-out room opening in a wall said apparatus comprising: (a) at least one rail adapted to be slide-out room thereto such that the slide-out room may supported proximate a first end thereof by an upper surface be advanced through the slide-out room opening; and of a sill of the slide-out room opening and extending (d) a support bracket secured to said first end of said perpendicular thereto; stationary member; said support bracket having an 15 (b) a support member secured to said rail toward a second outer lip for engaging an outer surface of the wall and end thereof; an inner lip for engaging an inner surface of the wall. (c) a slide plate slidably mounted to said railand adapted 19. The apparatus as in claim 18 wherein: for securement of the slide-out room thereto such that (a) said support bracket spans the width of the slide-out the slide out room is slidably advanceable through the room opening. 20 slide-out room opening; and 20. The apparatus as in claim 19 wherein said support (d) a support bracket secured to said first end of said rail; bracket includes: said support bracket having an outer lip for engaging an (a) a horizontally extending rear portion; and outer surface of the wall and an inner lip for engaging (b) a front portion which slopes downward toward a front an inner surface of the wall. end thereof. 25 23. The apparatus as in claim 22 wherein: 21. An apparatus for selectively extending and retracting (a) said support bracket spans the width of the slide-out a slide-out room through a slide-out room opening in a wall; room opening. said apparatus comprising: 24. The apparatus as in claim 23 wherein said support (a) at least one rail adapted to be supported proximate a 30 bracket includes: first end thereof by an upper surface of a sill of the (a) a horizontally extending rear portion; and slide-out room opening and extending perpendicular (b) a front portion which slopes downward toward a front thereto; end thereof. (b) a support member secured to said rail toward a second end thereof; * * * * *

Case 1:06-cv-00762-JJF

Document 27-3

Filed 09/14/2007

Page 12 of 93

EXHIBIT 2

Case 1:06-cv-00762-JJF

Document 27-3

Filed 09/14/2007

Page 13 of 93

9 Lewis & Clark L. Rev. 231

Page 1

Lewis & Clark Law Review Spring 2005 Article *231 MARKMAN EIGHT YEARS LATER: IS CLAIM CONSTRUCTION MORE PREDICTABLE? Kimberly A. Moore [FNa1] Copyright (c) 2005 Lewis & Clark Law Review; Kimberly A. Moore This Article revisits the growing criticism surrounding the lack of guidance and predictability in claim construction cases after the Markman decision. Specifically, the Article investigates the Federal Circuit's reversal rate on these cases, as a high reversal rate evidences confusion among the lower courts. In Part II, the author reviews existing empirical studies on the Federal Circuit's reversal rate in claim construction cases, arguing that many of these studies are misleading. Part III clarifies what data must be considered to adequately determine the Federal Circuit's reversal rate of appealed claim construction cases. In Part IV, the author concludes that her new analysis of the reversal rate supports the growing criticism that Markman has created confusion, not guidance, in claim construction cases, and the confusion is getting worse. INTRODUCTION. Empirical Studies of Claim Construction. A. Result-Based Studies: What is the Reversal Rate?. B. Methodology-Based Studies.

I. II.

231 233 234 238

© 2007 Thomson/West. No Claim to Orig. U.S. Govt. Works.

Case 1:06-cv-00762-JJF
9 Lewis & Clark L. Rev. 231 III.

Document 27-3

Filed 09/14/2007

Page 14 of 93
Page 2

The Empirical Study. A. Reversal Rates. B. Who Wins--Patentee or Infringer?. C. Means-Plus-Function Terms. D. Claim Construction By the Federal Circuit Judges.

239 239 240 242 243 245

IV.

The Reversal Rate is Getting Worse Not Better. I. INTRODUCTION

There is concern among the bench and bar that the Federal Circuit's de novo review of district court claim construction decisions [FN1] and lack of guidance have caused considerable unpredictability. [FN2] *232 There's a real sense of fatalism among the patent trial bar, shared by the district court judges, that no matter how careful we are in trying to apply what the court says about Markman, there's a high likelihood that on review, the [Federal Circuit] will change the construction of the claims. [FN3] Such concern prompted two prominent practitioners to coin the term " judicial hyperactivity" to describe how the Federal Circuit usurps the province *233 of the district court in, among other areas, claim construction. [FN4] The problem is so pernicious that the court itself has taken yet another claim construction case, [FN5] Phillips, [FN6] en banc in order to establish some ground rules for the claim construction process. In the Phillips case, the court invited briefing on fourteen separate questions regarding the types of sources to be consulted in construing claims and the deference to be given to the district court. [FN7] It is always useful to quantify any problem. Just how unpredictable is the claim construction

process? Existing empirical studies have asserted that the Federal Circuit reverses 25% to 50% of district court claim construction decisions. Practitioners then choose whichever number suits their cause. This is irresponsible empiricism. The Federal Circuit's claim construction reversal rate is not a judgment call. There is a right answer to the question: How often does the Federal Circuit determine that the district court got the claim construction wrong? The reversal rate (rate at which the Federal Circuit determined the claim construction was wrong) for appealed claim terms from 1996, after Markman was decided, [FN8] through 2003 is 34.5%. [FN9] In Part II, this Article reviews existing empirical studies on the claim construction process and discusses the shortcomings of these studies. In Part III, the Article presents updated and additional empirical findings on the Federal Circuit's reversal rates of appealed claim construction decisions. Part IV analyzes these results and concludes that criticism over the lack of guidance and unpredictability caused by the current claim construction process is warranted. The problem is getting worse, not better. II. EMPIRICAL STUDIES OF CLAIM CONSTRUCTION There are two categories of empirical studies of claim construction that have been performed: result-based and methodology-based. The result-based *234 studies, like this one, focus on

© 2007 Thomson/West. No Claim to Orig. U.S. Govt. Works.

Case 1:06-cv-00762-JJF
9 Lewis & Clark L. Rev. 231

Document 27-3

Filed 09/14/2007

Page 15 of 93
Page 3

outcome data to determine, among other things, how bad the problem is. The methodology-based studies focus on the process itself to explain why the problem is so bad. Both are useful in judging the process. A. Result-Based Studies: What is the Reversal Rate? It is undoubtedly frustrating to have several studies which purport to present the Federal Circuit's reversal rate of district court claim construction. The existing literature asserts a reversal rate ranging from 25% to 50%, depending on the study cited. The other empirical literature on this subject suffers from several serious flaws. The most substantial of which is the failure to review the Federal Circuit's Rule 36 summary affirmances. [FN10] When the Federal Circuit resolves an appeal, it can issue a precedential opinion, a non-precedential opinion, or a summary affirmance. Precedential opinions are opinions in which the court can either affirm or reverse the district court judgment, and these opinions are published and create citable precedent on the issues of law to which they pertain. Non-precedential opinions are law of the case in which they are issued, but do not create citable precedent. [FN11] These opinions can also either affirm or reverse the district court judgment. The court may also resolve a case by a Rule 36 summary affirmance. [FN12] This is an affirmance of the district court without opinion. These affirmances leave intact and affirm the judgment of the district court (and any claim construction determinations by the district court which were appealed). A case is not summarily affirmed because it is unimportant and should not be considered. [FN13] It is summarily affirmed because the district court got it right, and there is no new law that needs to be explained, defined, clarified or established. [FN14] There are no *235 summary reversals. Whenever the Federal Circuit reverses, it issues an opinion explaining how and why the district court was wrong. The Federal Circuit resolves claim construction appeals by all three means (precedential opinion, non-precedential opinion and Rule 36 summary affirmance). Obviously, eliminating a large group of non-randomly selected cases would affect the results. Studies that did not consider the Rule 36

summary affirmances eliminated a large group of affirmances from their dataset. This skewed their results and they report a significantly higher reversal rate than actually exists. All of the other early claim construction studies (the Chu Study (44% reversal rate), [FN15] the Bender Study (40% reversal rate), [FN16] and the Zidel Study (41.5% reversal rate) [FN17]) omitted Rule 36 cases from their claim *236 construction reversal rate determinations. [FN18] Although the studies were generally clear about what they considered, [FN19] and some even pointed out that they did not include Rule 36 summary affirmances, [FN20] they generally did not explain the consequences of this omission. Without the Rule 36 summary affirmances, these reversal rates are inaccurate--they are artificially high. It is common sense that if one excludes a bunch of affirmances, it will appear as though the court reverses more often than it does. The empirical studies, other than this one, omitted the Rule 36 summary affirmances because they are simply too difficult to include. Since the summary affirmances simply indicate that the case was affirmed, there is no easy way of determining what issues where involved in the appeal. The information cannot be obtained from a quick search on Westlaw or Lexis, but instead requires resort to the briefs filed with the Federal Circuit. Unless one obtains the original appellate briefs that were filed, and painstakingly reviews each one, one cannot determine whether a summary affirmance is an affirmance of a district court claim construction or an affirmance of some other unrelated issue. Obtaining the actual briefs is both time consuming and expensive. This study did just that; it reviewed every Rule 36 summary affirmance during the period of interest to ascertain whether the appeal involved claim construction. If so, it was included. To understand the magnitude of the error in data collection and its impact, consider this study. Of the 1100 claim construction terms appealed in this study, 15.5% (170) were resolved by Rule 36 summary affirmance, 34.7% (328) were resolved via non-precedential opinion of the court, and 49.8% (548) were resolved via precedential opinion of the court. The resultant reversal rate of 34.5% considered all of these cases. If the Rule 36 summary affirmances are left out, the reversal rate becomes 40.8%.

© 2007 Thomson/West. No Claim to Orig. U.S. Govt. Works.

Case 1:06-cv-00762-JJF
9 Lewis & Clark L. Rev. 231

Document 27-3

Filed 09/14/2007

Page 16 of 93
Page 4

None of the studies which omitted the Rule 36 cases explain how profound the impact on the results would likely be despite the fact that the significance was intuitively obvious. When one eliminates affirmances, one finds a higher reversal rate. Moreover, it is sensible to assume that a large number of Rule 36 cases would likely involve claim construction, because the construction of any individual claim term does not have significant impact beyond the parties. The meaning of a particular claim term does not have precedential value beyond the *237 patent at issue. In short, claim construction cases seem likely candidates for Rule 36 affirmance--that is, when the district court gets the construction right. However, the data show that claim construction appeals are actually less likely to be affirmed via Rule 36 then other patent appeals. As mentioned above, 15.5% of all the claim construction appeals were summarily affirmed. Another study found that among the 502 patent appeals to the Federal Circuit resolved between January 1, 1998 and April 30, 2000, 106 were summarily affirmed--21.1%. [FN21] This result suggests that claim construction cases are, thus far, less likely to be the subject of a Rule 36 summary affirmance despite the intuition that these sorts of cases would be the least likely to have precedential value. This is likely correlated to the ultimate finding of this study; namely, that claim construction reversals have gotten worse over time, not better. Since the Federal Circuit is reversing more claim construction decisions in recent years, [FN22] there are fewer Rule 36 summary affirmances. The first assertion regarding claim construction reversal rates came directly from one of the Federal Circuit judges and appeared in a concurrence to the en banc decision in Cybor Corp. [FN23] This, of course, gives the number the imprimatur of accuracy. In this decision, Judge Rader states as follows: [O]ne study shows that the plenary standard of review has produced reversal, in whole or in part, of almost 40% of all claim constructions since Markman I. A reversal rate in this range reverses more than the work of numerous trial courts; it also reverses the benefits of Markman I. In fact, this reversal rate, hovering near 50%, is the worst possible. Even a rate that was much higher

would provide greater certainty. [FN24] Interestingly the Judge cites the reversal rate as "almost 40%" then says that 40% is " hovering near 50%." With this empirical slight of hand, claim construction reversal is raised from the actual finding of the study, 38.3%, to 50%, and quoted by people accordingly. [FN25] Although we have no idea from the opinion who conducted the study, the opinion does explain: This figure is based on a survey of every patent decision rendered by the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit between 5 April 1995 (the date Markman I was decided) and 24 November 1997. A total of 246 patent cases, originating in the Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences (BPAI), the district courts, and the Court of Federal Claims, were evaluated. Of the 246 cases, 141 cases expressly reviewed claim construction issues. Among these 141 decisions, this court reversed, in whole or in part, 54 or 38.3% of all claim constructions. With respect to *238 the district court and Court of Federal Claims cases, the rate of reversal of claim constructions is 47 out of 126 or 37.3%. [FN26] This explanation does not clarify whether the empiricist considered all Federal Circuit cases: Rule 36, non-precedential, and precedential. It is also unclear when a case is considered "reversed." Are cases only included if they result in an actual reversal of the district court judgment, or are they included whenever the Federal Circuit determines that the district court wrongly construed claim construction? It is possible that the district court could get claim construction wrong but the case would still be affirmed. For example, suppose the district court construed two terms favorably for the infringer, each of which results in a finding of non-infringement. The Federal Circuit may determine that the district court construed one of the terms wrongly but still affirm the judgment of non-infringement based on the other term. In comparing all of these empirical studies, one must be mindful not only of the shortcomings of some of the empirical collection but also of exactly what the study means by "reversal rate." There are

© 2007 Thomson/West. No Claim to Orig. U.S. Govt. Works.

Case 1:06-cv-00762-JJF
9 Lewis & Clark L. Rev. 231

Document 27-3

Filed 09/14/2007

Page 17 of 93
Page 5

three possibilities. First, reversal rate can be the rate at which the Federal Circuit determined that the district court claim construction was wrong (even if it did not actually result in reversal of the judgment) on a term-by-term basis. In many appeals, more than one construed term was appealed, so statistics can be reported on a term-by-term basis or on a case-by-case basis. In this study, the Federal Circuit determined that the district court wrongly interpreted 34.5% of all claim terms that were appealed. Second, the reversal rate could be the number of cases in which one or more claim term was erroneously construed. In this study, that reversal rate would be 37.5%. Finally, the reversal rate could be only the cases in which a claim construction error actually resulted in reversal of the appealed judgment. In this study, 29.7% of the cases were reversed or vacated and remanded because of erroneous claim construction. Obviously, the definition of "reversal rate" could impact the percentage by almost 8% (29.7%-37.5%). B. Methodology-Based Studies Few empirical studies examine the methodology behind Federal Circuit decision-making on any issue. There are two such studies on the issue of claim construction. A study by Wagner and Petherbridge found that the Federal Circuit is divided between two methodological approaches to claim construction: procedural and holistic. [FN27] Additionally, the study found evidence of panel dependence in claim construction decision-making. [FN28] The most recent empirical study, by Miller and Hilsenteger, analyzes the Federal Circuit's use of dictionaries in defining claim terms. [FN29] This study will undoubtedly be useful to the court in resolving the en banc Phillips case on this very point. *239 III. THE EMPIRICAL STUDY In this study, I update and expand my earlier empirical project described in Are District Court Judges Equipped to Resolve Patent Cases?. [FN30] This original database now contains all precedential, non-precedential, and Rule 36 (summary affirmances) decisions of the Federal Circuit on claim construction from the Supreme Court's Markman decision (1996) through 2003. [FN31] This dataset contains 1100 appealed claim construction terms from 651 separate cases.

A. Reversal Rates After a de novo appeal, the Federal Circuit held that 34.5% of the terms were wrongly construed by the district court. In the 651 cases, the Federal Circuit held at least one term was wrongly construed in 37.5% of the cases. In the cases in which one or more term was wrongly construed, the erroneous claim construction required the Federal Circuit to reverse or vacate the district court's judgment in 29.7% of the cases. *240 B. Who Wins--Patentee or Infringer? The Federal Circuit has long been criticized as a pro-patentee forum. [FN32] Analyzing the claim construction data according to infringer and patentee wins may shed some light on this critique. Among the claim construction terms appealed to the Federal Circuit, 76% were won by the infringer at the district court level. This probably confirms popular perceptions that district courts are increasingly granting summary judgment of non-infringement following claim construction because it is the only way to get appellate review of claim construction at an early stage in the proceedings. [FN33] In fact, in another study, I found that 86% of all summary judgments granted in all patent cases terminated from 1999-2000 were summary judgments of non-infringement. There could be another possible explanation: namely, that patentees who lose on claim construction are more likely to appeal than infringers who lose. Hence, the pool of appealed cases is not random or representative of district court decisions, but rather appeal is more likely whenever the patentee loses. There are asymmetric stakes in most patent litigations. [FN34] The patentee has more to lose than the infringer because, if the claims are construed narrowly, the patentee will not be able to assert them against other potential infringers. These asymmetric stakes make appeal by the patentee more likely, which would skew the pool of appealed cases. Regardless of the pool of district court decision-making, appellate review statistics can provide insight into the patentee/infringer debate. While the infringer won 76% of the appealed claim constructions from the district court, *241 after appellate review, the claim construction only favored the infringer in 58% of the cases. This may lead some to conclude that the Federal Circuit is in

© 2007 Thomson/West. No Claim to Orig. U.S. Govt. Works.

Case 1:06-cv-00762-JJF
9 Lewis & Clark L. Rev. 231

Document 27-3

Filed 09/14/2007

Page 18 of 93
Page 6

fact pro-patentee, because they reverse a higher number of infringer wins. The fact that their claim constructions favor the infringer 58% of the time with de novo review suggests that the court, if anything, favors the infringer. However, there is, of course, a selection effect story to tell. Normally, the party with more at stake would only try stronger cases because a loss would harm them more. [FN35] However, the appeal is a different matter altogether. In this case, there already exists a negative claim construction determination that harms the patentee not just in this action, but with all other possible infringers. The determination harms their ability to secure licensing revenue and their chances at litigation. In addition, appeals have low transaction costs as compared to trials. Since patentees have more at stake in patent cases, and with claim construction in particular, and since the appeal costs little, it makes sense that they would actually appeal even weaker cases. With the de novo review, patentees have little to lose. [FN36] This might explain why on appeal claim construction decisions favor infringers slightly more than patentees. Hence, while the Federal Circuit finds in favor of patentees more often than the district court judges looking at the same terms, the overall rate of 58% in favor of infringers belies claims that the Federal Circuit is pro-patentee. Table 1 indicates that the Federal Circuit is just as likely to reverse a claim construction appeal which was won by the infringer at the district court level as one won by the patentee. L1-2Table 1: Patentee v. Infringer Win Rates........ Who Won At District Court........ Patentee Won........ Infringer Won........ *242 C. Means-Plus-Function Terms Construing means-plus-function claim terms is even more difficult. [FN37] The patentee has the option of using function rather than structural claim language. If the patent