1423 Izumi Products Company v. Koninklijke Philips Electronics N.v., Philips Electronics North America Corporation

NOTE: Pursuant to Fed. Cir. R. 47.6, this disposition is not
citable as precedent. It is a public record.
United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
04-1418,-1423
IZUMI PRODUCTS COMPANY,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
KONINKLIJKE PHILIPS ELECTRONICS N.V.,
PHILIPS ELECTRONICS NORTH AMERICA CORPORATION,
and PHILIPS DOMESTIC APPLIANCES AND PERSONAL CARE B.V.,
Defendants-Cross Appellants.
____________________
DECIDED: July 7, 2005
____________________
Before NEWMAN, LOURIE, and LINN, Circuit Judges.
Opinion for the court filed by Circuit Judge LOURIE. Concurring-in-part and dissenting-
in-part opinion filed by Circuit Judge LINN.
LOURIE, Circuit Judge.
Izumi Products Company (“Izumi”) appeals from the decision of the United States
District Court for the District of Delaware granting summary judgment of
noninfringement of United States Patent 5,408,749 in favor of Koninklijke Philips
Electronics N.V., Philips Electronics North America Corp., and Philips Domestic
Appliances and Personal Care B.V. (collectively “Philips”). Izumi Prods. Co. v.
Koninklijke Philips Elecs. N.V., 315 F. Supp. 2d 589 (D. Del. 2004). Philips cross-
appeals from the decision of the district court denying its motion for summary judgment

-- 1 of 23 --

of invalidity of the ’749 patent. Because we agree with the district court that Philips
does not infringe the ’749 patent and that Philips did not prove that the patent was
invalid on the ground of anticipation by Japanese Patent Publication 55-47879, we
affirm.
BACKGROUND
The patent in this case generally relates to electric rotary razors. Conventional
electric rotary razors are designed with a stationary ring of outer cutter blades and a
rotating ring of inner cutter blades. An example of an inner cutter and an outer cutter is
shown below in figures 2 and 3, respectively, as they appear in the patent.
When such razors are applied to a skin surface to be shaved, the hairs on the skin pass
through openings in the outer cutter and are sheared off by the inner cutter blades. To
provide a close shave, electric rotary razors may use springs to keep the cutting edge
surface of the inner cutter blades in constant contact with the bottom surface of the
outer cutter blades. According to the patent specification, the shortcomings of such
conventional electric rotary razors include sheared hairs adhering to the rear side
surface of the inner cutter blades. ’749 patent, col. 1, ll. 41-47. Another shortcoming of
conventional electric rotary razors is that they have a relatively large area of contact
between the surfaces of the outer and inner cutters. Id., col. 1, ll. 65-68. These
04-1418, -1423 2

-- 2 of 23 --

shortcomings result in conventional rotary razors having increased frictional resistance
between the two cutters, increased power consumption, and reduced rotational speed
of the inner cutter. Id., col. 1, ll. 47-55, 65-68. The increased frictional resistance also
generates heat on the surface of the outer cutter that touches the skin, thereby causing
discomfort. Id., col. 1, ll. 56-61.
The patented invention seeks to improve upon conventional electric rotary razors
by reducing the surface area of the cutting edge surface of the inner cutter blades and
by designing the inner cutter blades so that shaving debris does not easily adhere to its
rear side surface. Id., col. 2, ll. 19-28. To achieve both of these results, the patent
specification discloses an inner cutter blade with the rear portion of the cutting edge
surface removed. Id., col. 2, ll. 40-48; Id. col. 4, ll. 56-58. As illustrated below in the
embodiments shown in figures 4 and 5, the specification further discloses that an inner
cutter blade (40) with a cutout (40(a)), or recess, having a cutout angle θ of 90 degrees
(figure 4) or less (figure 5) between the cutting edge surface (41) and the rear side
surface of the inner cutter blade, will reduce shaving debris adhesion to the rear side
surface of the inner cutter blade. Id., col. 4, l. 58 to col. 5, l. 8.
The specification contrasts the embodiments of the invention shown in figures 4
and 5 with the inner cutter blade (4) of a conventional electric rotary razor, shown below
in figure 8, which does not have a cutout. Without the cutout, the rear side surface
(4(b)) of the inner cutter blade is parallel to the front side surface, and the angle
between the rear side surface and the cutting edge surface is greater than 90 degrees.
Id., col. 5, ll. 9-13. According to the patent specification, because this angle is greater
04-1418, -1423 3

-- 3 of 23 --

than 90 degrees, shaving debris (5) will not be prevented from adhering to the rear side
surface. Id.
In March 2002, Izumi filed suit against Philips alleging infringement of the ’749
patent. Specifically, Izumi accused 116 different electric rotary razor models
manufactured by Philips of infringing the ’749 patent. Izumi Prods., 315 F. Supp. 2d at
596. All of the accused electric rotary razors have semi-cylindrical grooves on the rear
side surface of the inner cutter blades. Moreover, the grooves are cut at an angle so
that the rear side surface is parallel to the front side surface, resulting in a cutout angle
θ of greater than 90 degrees, similar to the prior art inner cutter blade shown in figure 8
above. Philips denied Izumi’s allegations of infringement and filed counterclaims
seeking a declaratory judgment of noninfringement and invalidity. Izumi asserted all
three claims of the ’749 patent in the district court proceeding.
Claim 1, one of two independent claims of the ’749 patent, reads as follows:
An electric razor comprising;
at least one outer cutter with openings through which
whiskers penetrate;
at least one inner cutter having a plurality of cutter blades,
each one of said cutter blades having a cutting edge
surface at an upper end thereof that slides on an inside
surface of said outer cutter, said cutter blades being
inclined in a direction of rotation of said inner cutter; and
a recess comprising an indentation formed immediately
beneath said cutting edge surface and facing in a
direction opposite from said direction of rotation of said
04-1418, -1423 4

-- 4 of 23 --

inner cutter in each one of said plurality of cutter blades
whereby said cutting edge surface is made thinner than a
thickness of said cutter blade.
Claim 2 depends from claim 1, and it includes limitations regarding a cutter disk and the
orientation of cutter arms relative to said cutter disk. Claim 3, the other independent
claim, reads as follows:
An inner cutter used in an electric rotary razor comprising:
a cutter disk with a through hole at a center thereof;
a plurality of cutter arms extending from an outer edge of
said cutter disk in a vertical direction relative to said
cutter disk;
a cutter blade extending from each one of said cutter arms
and inclined in a rotational direction of said inner cutter,
each one of said cutter blades being provided with a
cutting edge surface at an end surface of said cutter
blade and with a recess formed below said cutting edge
surface; and wherein
said recess is formed on a rear surface of said cutter blade,
said rear surface facing an opposite direction from the
rotational direction of said inner cutter.
Izumi moved for summary judgment of infringement and Phillips moved for
summary judgment of noninfringement. Following the parties’ respective motions, the
district court construed the limitations “a recess comprising an indentation formed
immediately beneath said cutting edge surface” and “a recess formed below said cutting
edge surface” of claims 1 and 3, respectively. Izumi Prods. Co. v. Koninklijke Philips
Elecs. N.V., No. 02-156-SLR, 2004 WL 1043375, at *1 (D. Del. Apr. 27, 2004). Both
limitations were construed to mean “A cut out formed directly under the cutting edge
surface and oriented in a horizontal direction, parallel to the cutting edge surface.” Id.
In reaching this construction, the court relied on the specification, which states: “It is . . .
possible to form a recess of a great amount of indentation on the upper rear side
surface of the cutter blade so that the recess is located immediately beneath the rear
04-1418, -1423 5

-- 5 of 23 --

edge of the cutting edge surface that is on the opposite side from the direction of
rotation of the inner cutter.” Id. (citing ’749 patent, col. 2, ll. 43-48). The court further
noted that “[t]he specification explains that the purpose for the cut out is to prevent
shaving debris from adhering to the surface of the inner cutter.” Id.
After construing the claim limitations, the court addressed whether the accused
products, as a matter of law, met the “recess beneath/recess below” limitations. In
granting summary judgment of no literal infringement, 1 the court found that the inner
cutter blades of the accused products have grooves that are positioned at or begin flush
with the cutting edge surface, as opposed to having a recess lying immediately below
the cutting surface, as the claim requires. Izumi Prods., 315 F. Supp. 2d at 598-99.
Moreover, the court noted that the grooves are not oriented in a horizontal direction or
parallel to the cutting edge surface. Id.
The district court also granted Philips’ motion to preclude Izumi’s expert witness,
Dr. Charles E. Benedict, from testifying regarding infringement by the accused products
under the doctrine of equivalents. Id. at 602. Although Dr. Benedict was qualified as an
expert, the court questioned the reliability of his opinion on the effect of turbulence on
shaving debris adhesion to the rear side surface of the inner cutter blades of an electric
rotary razor. Id. The court noted that Dr. Benedict’s proffered opinion was not
supported by tests conducted on the accused products and that the opinion did not cite
any supporting literature. Id. Moreover, the court determined that there was no valid
1 With respect to Philips’ motion for summary judgment of noninfringement
under the doctrine of equivalents, the court found that genuine issues of material fact
existed as to whether the accused products perform the same function in substantially
the same way as the electric razor claimed in the ’749 patent. Izumi Prods., 315 F.
Supp. 2d at 599. Philips, however, does not appeal the court’s disposition of that
motion.
04-1418, -1423 6

-- 6 of 23 --

scientific connection between Dr. Benedict’s turbulence theory and the way the grooved
inner cutter blade of the accused products functions. Thus, the court found that Dr.
Benedict’s testimony could potentially confuse the jury, and it was therefore precluded
from presentation to the jury. Id.
Finally, the district court addressed the parties’ competing motions for summary
judgment of validity and invalidity of the ’749 patent under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b). The
allegedly anticipatory reference was Japanese Patent Publication 55-47879 (the
“Hamashima ’879 publication”). Id. at 603. In concluding that the patent was not
anticipated, the court determined that the Hamashima ’879 publication did not disclose
“a plurality of cutter arms extending from an outer edge of said cutter disk in a vertical
direction,” as required by claims 2 and 3 of the ’749 patent. Id. The court construed the
limitation to mean that “two or more projections extend in a vertical direction from the
outer edge of the cutter disk.” Izumi Prods., 2004 WL, at *1. The court then observed
that the cutter arms in the Hamashima reference extended radially, and not from the
outer edge of the cutter disk in a vertical direction. Izumi Prods., 315 F. Supp. 2d at
603. Thus, the court granted Izumi’s motion for partial summary judgment of no
anticipation of claims 2 and 3 of the ’749 patent and denied Philips’ cross-motion for
summary judgment that the Hamashima ’879 publication anticipates claim 3 of the ’749
patent. Id. at 604.
On May 4, 2004, the district court entered final judgments of noninfringement of
the ’749 patent and a lack of anticipation of claims 2 and 3 of the ’749 patent by the
Hamashima ’879 publication. The district court also dismissed all declaratory judgment
04-1418, -1423 7

-- 7 of 23 --

counterclaims as moot. Izumi timely appealed and Philips timely cross-appealed to this
court. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1295(a)(1).
DISCUSSION
We review a district court’s grant of summary judgment de novo, reapplying the
same standard used by the district court. Ethicon Endo-Surgery, Inc. v. U.S. Surgical
Corp., 149 F.3d 1309, 1315 (Fed. Cir. 1998). Summary judgment is appropriate if there
is no genuine issue as to any material fact and the moving party is entitled to a
judgment as a matter of law. Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c). “The evidence of the non-movant is
to be believed, and all justifiable inferences are to be drawn in his favor.” Anderson v.
Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 255 (1986).
I. Infringement
On appeal, Izumi challenges the district court's summary judgment of
noninfringement of the ’749 patent, arguing that the court erred in its claim construction
analysis. Izumi contends that the court erred by construing the limitation “recess . . .
formed immediately beneath,” as used in claim 1, to mean a recess that is “directly
under” the cutting edge surface. Izumi argues that the court should have construed the
limitation to mean a recess that is “lower than the cutting edge surface,” but not
necessarily “directly under” the cutting edge surface. Although the dictionary defines
the term “beneath” as both “directly underneath” and “lower than,” according to Izumi,
claim 1 would not cover the embodiment shown in figure 4 under the court’s
construction since no portion of the recess is “directly under” the cutting edge surface.
With respect to the limitation “recess formed below,” as used in claim 3, Izumi
argues that the district court erred by also construing that term to mean “directly under.”
04-1418, -1423 8

-- 8 of 23 --

As with the claim term “beneath,” Izumi asserts that the proper meaning of the term
“below” is “lower than.” Izumi also contends that the limitation “below” is broader than
“immediately beneath,” since a “recess formed below” is not necessarily “immediately
beneath” the cutting edge surface. Thus, according to Izumi, “recess formed below”
should be construed to mean a recess that is lower than the cutting edge surface, but
not necessarily “immediately beneath” the cutting edge surface.
Izumi also argues that the district court erred by construing the “recess
beneath/recess below” limitations of claims 1 and 3 to be “oriented in a horizontal
direction, parallel to the cutting edge surface.” According to Izumi, the court improperly
read into the claims an additional limitation. Aside from a horizontally-oriented recess
not being disclosed in the patent, Izumi further points out that the recess in the
embodiment shown in figure 4 can be viewed as either a horizontally-oriented recess or
a vertically-oriented recess, like the accused products.
Finally, Izumi appeals from the district court’s preclusion of Dr. Benedict’s
testimony on infringement under the doctrine of equivalents. Izumi argues that, contrary
to the district court’s finding, Dr. Benedict considered all of the accused products in
forming his opinion. Izumi also asserts that the court committed legal error by requiring
Dr. Benedict to test the accused products or cite supporting literature. Izumi argues that
Dr. Benedict’s testimony applying “well-established” principles of turbulence to electric
rotary razors did not require testing or citation of supporting literature. Izumi also
disputes the court’s finding of a lack of scientific connection between Dr. Benedict’s
testimony and the functionality of the grooved inner cutter blades. According to Izumi,
04-1418, -1423 9

-- 9 of 23 --

Dr. Benedict’s testimony did explain how the grooved inner cutter blades of the accused
products reduce shaving debris adhesion.
Philips responds with various counterarguments to support the district court’s
claim construction. To support the court’s choice of the dictionary definition “directly
under,” instead of “lower than,” Philips cites portions of the specification stating that the
cutout angle between the rear side surface of inner cutter blade and the cutting edge
surface must be 90 degrees or less in order to reduce shaving debris adhesion. Philips
argues that a recess that is simply “lower than” the cutting edge surface will not
accomplish the patent’s stated objective. Philips also disputes Izumi’s assertion that the
“directly under” construction would read out the embodiment shown in figure 4.
According to Philips, figure 4 represents an embodiment having a recess at the furthest
point where it can still be considered “directly under” the cutting edge surface. Philips
also argues that Izumi, by surrendering claims reciting an inner cutter blade with a
reduced cutting edge surface, disclaimed inner cutter blades with a recess that was
simply “lower than” the cutting edge surface.
Philips also defends the court’s construction requiring the recess to be “oriented
in a horizontal direction, parallel to the cutting edge surface.” According to Philips, a
recess that is “directly under” the cutting edge surface will necessarily be “oriented in a
horizontal direction, parallel to the cutting edge surface.” Moreover, Philips argues that
a recess at or flush with the cutting edge surface will be oriented in a vertical direction.
Regarding the limitation “recess formed below,” as used in claim 3, Philips
disagrees with Izumi that that term is broader in scope than “recess . . . . formed
immediately beneath,” as used in claim 1. Philips notes that the specification never
04-1418, -1423 10

-- 10 of 23 --

uses the term “below” to describe the position of the recess, but instead always uses
the term “immediately beneath.” Moreover, Philips argues that contrary to the
specification, a recess that is not “immediately beneath” the cutting edge surface will not
reduce shaving debris adhesion at the rear of the inner cutter blade.
Philips also responds to Izumi’s argument that the district court improperly
precluded Dr. Benedict’s testimony on infringement under the doctrine of equivalents.
Philips reiterates the district court’s position that Dr. Benedict’s testimony was unreliable
because he offered no support for his testimony, in particular, the lack of testing on the
accused products and citation of supporting literature. Philips also asserts that, given
the lack of support in his testimony, the court appropriately found insufficient connection
between Dr. Benedict’s turbulence theory and the way the inner cutter blades of the
accused products function.
As an initial matter, we conclude that the court erred in construing the limitations
“recess . . . formed immediately beneath” and “recess formed below” to mean “a cut out
formed directly under the cutting edge surface and oriented in a horizontal direction,
parallel to the cutting edge surface.” As Izumi recognizes, under the district court’s
construction, the embodiment shown in figure 4 would not meet either limitation, and
that result argues against the court’s interpretation. The recess of the embodiment
shown in figure 4 does not have any part of its cutout directly under the cutting edge
surface, as the district court’s claim construction requires. Instead, the recess begins at
a point immediately adjacent to the point directly under the cutting edge surface.
We are not, however, prepared to give Izumi the broad interpretation that it
currently seeks. The specification states that an objective of the disclosed invention is
04-1418, -1423 11

-- 11 of 23 --

“to provide an electric razor which assures that the shaving debris and other substances
do not easily adhere to the cutter blades of the inner cutter.” ’749 patent, col. 2, ll. 25-
28. The invention accomplishes this objective by cutting out the rear portion of the
cutting edge surface. Id., col. 2, ll. 40-44. The specification further teaches that inner
cutter blades having a recess with a cutout angle θ of greater than 90 degrees between
the rear side surface of the inner cutter blade surface and the cutting edge surface, as
seen in the prior art electric rotary razors, will not prevent shaving debris adhesion. Id.,
col. 5, ll. 9-13. In disclosing that the cutout angle θ must be 90 degrees or less, the
specification is not describing an embodiment of the disclosed invention, but rather
defining a critical aspect of the invention itself. We therefore construe the claim term
“recess,” as used in both claims 1 and 3, to be a cutout having an angle θ of 90 degrees
or less between the rear side surface of the inner cutter blade and the cutting edge
surface.
Furthermore, we reject Izumi’s attempt to construe the limitation “recess formed
below,” as used in claim 3, more broadly than the limitation “recess . . . formed
immediately beneath,” as used in claim 1. As we construe it, the claim term “recess”
has a cutout angle θ between the rear side surface of the inner cutter blade and the
cutting edge surface. But there can be no cutout angle θ if the “recess” is not
immediately below the cutting edge surface. Indeed, an intervening section of the inner
cutter blade would preclude the existence of an angle between the rear side surface
portion of the cutout and the cutting edge surface. Thus, the “recess,” as that term is
used in claim 3, must be immediately below the cutting edge surface. Moreover, Izumi’s
proposed construction of “recess formed below” would be contrary to a stated objective
04-1418, -1423 12

-- 12 of 23 --

of the invention, viz., to minimize the contact pressure between the surfaces of the inner
and outer cutter blades by reducing the thickness of the cutting edge surface of the
inner cutter blade. Id., col. 2, ll. 19-24. Under Izumi’s construction, the cutting edge
surface of the inner cutter blade would not necessarily have a reduced thickness.
Next, we address the district court’s construction requiring the recess to be
“orientated in a horizontal direction, parallel to the cutting edge surface.” We agree with
Izumi that the patent specification does not support this claim construction. As we have
construed them here, the claims require only a recess having a cutout angle θ of 90
degrees or less. A semi-cylindrical recess having a cutout angle θ of 90 degrees or less
would not be “orientated in a horizontal direction, parallel to the cutting edge surface,”
but would otherwise appear to fall within the scope of the claim term “recess,” as we
have defined it. Thus, we conclude that the district court erred in requiring the recess to
be “orientated in a horizontal direction, parallel to the cutting edge surface.”
Despite our differences with the district court’s claim construction, we will affirm
its decision on infringement. The court’s errors were harmless. Under our construction
of the limitations “recess . . . formed immediately beneath said cutting edge surface”
and “recess formed below said cutting edge surface” to mean “a cut out having an angle
θ of 90 degrees or less between the rear side surface of the inner cutter blade and the
cutting edge surface, with the cutout also being immediately lower than the cutting edge
surface,” the accused products do not literally infringe claims 1 and 3 of the ’749 patent.
Indeed, neither party disputes that the angle θ between the rear side surface of the
inner cutter blade and the cutting edge surface of all of the accused products is greater
than 90 degrees. That being the case, there is no infringement.
04-1418, -1423 13

-- 13 of 23 --

Furthermore, we hold that the district court did not abuse its discretion by
precluding Dr. Benedict’s testimony regarding infringement under the doctrine of
equivalents. Dr. Benedict’s testimony generally explained how inner cutter blades
shaped like the accused products could potentially generate sufficient turbulence to
prevent shaving debris adhesion. The testimony then immediately jumped to the
conclusion that the accused products “perform[] substantially the same function in
substantially the same way to achieve the same result as the claimed invention.” The
testimony, however, was missing the essential analysis as to whether inner cutter
blades having the same physical dimensions and operating parameters of the accused
products generated sufficient turbulence to prevent adhesion of shaving debris. Such
an analysis was necessary given that Dr. Benedict had not tested whether shaving
debris actually adhered to the rear side surface of the inner cutter blades of the accused
products. As the district court noted, without this minimal testing, Dr. Benedict was
merely providing his subjective beliefs, which were not supported. We also reject
Philips’ assertion that Dr. Benedict did consider tests that were performed on the
accused products. Aside from the question whether Dr. Benedict relied on appropriate
prior tests, from our review of the testimony, even if Dr. Benedict did consider the
appropriate tests, it was not reflected in his conclusory testimony. In view of these
deficiencies, we conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion in finding Dr.
Benedict’s testimony unreliable.
04-1418, -1423 14

-- 14 of 23 --

II. Anticipation
Philips cross-appeals from the district court’s decision denying its motion for
summary judgment of invalidity of the ’749 patent on the ground of anticipation by the
Hamashima ’879 reference under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b). Philips also disputes the court’s
construction of the limitation “a plurality of cutter arms extending from an outer edge of
said cutter disk” to mean “two or more projections extend in a vertical direction from the
outer edge of the cutter disk.”
Arguing that the court did not apply the plain meaning rule, Philips requests that
we construe the limitation to mean an inner cutter comprised of a disk having cutter
arms projecting from the disk at some position away from center of the disk and at the
disk’s outer edge. Under its proposed construction, Philips argues that the Hamashima
reference meets this limitation by disclosing cutter arms extending in a radial direction
from within the cutter disk. To further support its proposed construction, Philips also
argues that the cutter arm arrangement disclosed in the Hamashima reference is
“identical” to that in U.S. Patent 2,824,367, where, according to Philips, the Examiner
found cutter arms extending from an outer edge of the cutter.
We affirm the district court’s decision that the Hamashima ’879 publication does
not anticipate claims 2 and 3 of the ’749 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b). Moreover, we
conclude that the court did not err in its construction of the limitation “a plurality of cutter
arms extending from an outer edge of said cutter disk.” We agree with Izumi that the
claims clearly require some portion of the cutter arms to extend from the outer edge of
the cutter disk in a vertical direction. The Hamashima reference, however, only
discloses cutter arms extending from within the cutter disk, not from the outer edge of
04-1418, -1423 15

-- 15 of 23 --

the cutter disk. Indeed, no portion of the cutter arms in Hamashima even touches the
outer edge of the cutter disk. Moreover, contrary to Philips’ assertion, the cutter arms in
the Hamashima reference are not identical to the cutter arms in the ’367 patent. Unlike
the cutter arms in the Hamashima reference, a portion of the cutter arms disclosed in
the ’367 patent extends from the outer edge of the cutter disk. Thus, the Hamashima
reference does not anticipate claims 2 and 3 of the ’749 patent.
We have considered Izumi’s remaining arguments regarding the ’749 patent and
find them not persuasive.
CONCLUSION
We affirm the district court's grant of summary judgment of noninfringement of
the ’749 patent and summary judgment of a lack of anticipation of claims 2 and 3 of the
’749 patent by the Hamashima ’879 publication.
COSTS
Each party shall bear its own costs.
04-1418, -1423 16

-- 16 of 23 --

NOTE: Pursuant to Fed. Cir. R. 47.6, this disposition
is not citable as precedent. It is a public record.
United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
04-1418,-1423
IZUMI PRODUCTS COMPANY,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
KONINKLIJKE PHILIPS ELECTRONICS N.V.,
PHILIPS ELECTRONICS NORTH AMERICA CORPORATION,
and PHILIPS DOMESTIC APPLIANCES AND PERSONAL CARE B.V.,
Defendants-Cross Appellants.
LINN, Circuit Judge, concurring-in-part and dissenting-in-part.
While I concur in the majority’s affirmance of the district court’s grant of summary
judgment of lack of anticipation of claims 2 and 3 of United States Patent No. 5,408,749
(“the ’749 patent”) and its determination that the district court did not abuse its discretion
in excluding expert testimony, I must respectfully dissent from its conclusion regarding
noninfringement. The majority concludes that there is no infringement because the
accused products have an angle θ, between the rear side surface of the inner cutter
blade and the cutting edge surface, greater than 90 degrees and, thus, do not read on
the claimed “recess,” which, the majority concludes, requires “having an angle θ of 90
degrees or less.” Ante at 13. In my view, the restriction of the scope of the claimed
recess to require this angular limitation improperly reads a limitation from the
specification into the claims. I can discern no proper basis to do so and would give the
“recess” limitation the full scope of its ordinary and customary meaning.

-- 17 of 23 --

The disputed claimed term “recess” appears in independent claims 1 and 3.
Claim 1 recites an electric razor comprising, among other things, “a recess … formed
immediately beneath said cutting edge surface … whereby said cutting edge surface is
made thinner than a thickness of said cutter blade.” Claim 3 recites an inner cutter
comprising, “a recess formed below said cutting edge surface.”
Claim terms are to be given their ordinary and customary meaning to one of skill
in the relevant art. Johnson Worldwide Assocs., Inc. v. Zebco Corp., 175 F.3d 985, 989
(Fed. Cir. 1999). In the context of the specification, the ordinary and customary
meaning of “recess” is a cutout. The specification states that “the rear portion of the
cutting edge surface (or the portion which faces a direction opposite to the rotational
direction of inner cutter) is cut out.” ’749 patent, col. 2, ll. 40-43. The specification
further states that “The recess 40a is formed by cutting away a portion of the cutting
edge surface 41.” Id., col. 4, ll. 56-58.
The majority imposes an angular structural limitation on the claim term “recess.”
Specifically, the majority construes the claim term “recess” to be a cutout having an
angle θ of 90 degrees or less between the rear side surface of the inner cutter blade
and the cutting edge surface. Ante at 12. The majority imposes such an angular
limitation based on two statements from the specification. In my view, neither statement
compels such a conclusion.
First, the majority contends that the “recess” is limited to cutouts having angles of
90 degrees or less in order to accomplish an objective of the invention; namely, to
prevent shaving debris and other substances from adhering to the cutter blades. The
specification, however, merely identifies preventing shaving debris from adhering as
04-1418,-1423 2

-- 18 of 23 --

one of two objectives of the invention. The patent also identifies the objective of
“provid[ing] an electric razor which can minimize the contact pressure of the inner cutter
against the inside or bottom surface of the outer cutter by securing a reduced amount of
surface area of the inner cutter that is in contact with the outer cutter.” ’749 patent, col.
2, ll. 20-24. Our precedent is clear that “the fact that a patent asserts that an invention
achieves several objectives does not require that each of the claims be construed as
limited to structures that are capable of achieving all of the objectives.” Liebel-
Flarsheim Co. v. Medrad, Inc., 359 F.3d 898, 908 (Fed. Cir. 2004). Here, cutter blades
with cutouts having angles greater than 90 degrees, which would be excluded under the
majority’s construction, would still achieve the objective of minimizing the contact
pressure of the cutter blade. The reduction in contact pressure stems from the
reduction in the thickness of the cutting edge surface, regardless of any angular
limitation. The identification of an objective that is not met when the claim is given its
ordinary meaning is not in itself a disclaimer that is sufficient to narrow that ordinary
meaning.
The second passage relied on by the majority, states: “In the conventional inner
cutter, the angle θ is greater than 90 degrees as indicated by the dotted lines in [figures]
4 and 5. Accordingly, the shaving debris, etc. tends to adhere to the rear surface 40b of
the cutter blade 40.” ’749 patent, col. 5, ll. 9-13. The majority interprets the quoted text
as a requirement that the cutout angle θ must be 90 degrees or less. I respectfully
disagree.
While the angularity referenced in this statement of the specification is described
as affecting the tendency of shaving debris to adhere to the blade, it has no effect
04-1418,-1423 3

-- 19 of 23 --

whatsoever on the second objective of the invention, namely, the reduction of friction.
Thus, this description of inner cutters with angles equal to or less than 90 degrees,
when considered in context, is not a disclaimer of subject matter, but simply an
explanation of why inner cutters having not only recesses but also these particular
angles are preferred embodiments in achieving one of the objectives of the invention.
“Such a description, of course, does not limit the scope of the claims.” Honeywell Inc. v.
Victor Co. of Japan, 298 F.3d 1317, 1326 (Fed. Cir. 2002) (holding that claim need not
be construed in a manner that would lead to the solution of both prior art problems
discussed in the written description).
The two statements from the specification of the ‘749 patent relied on by the
majority do not sufficiently evidence an intention to depart from the ordinary meaning of
“recess.” Moreover, the specification here does “not suggest that [recesses having
angles of 90 degrees or less] are an essential component of the invention, nor is there
any language … in the specification, that disclaims the use of the invention in the
absence of [recesses having angles of 90 degrees or less].” Liebel, 358 F.3d at 908.
Nor is this case like SciMed Life Systems, Inc. v. Advanced Cardiovascular Systems,
Inc., 242 F.3d 1337 (Fed. Cir. 2001), where the specification specifically disclaimed
non-disclosed embodiments by stating that the “structure defined above is the basic …
structure for all embodiments of the present invention contemplated and disclosed
herein.” Id. at 1343 (quoting the patents at issue). In sum, in this case I can discern no
proper basis for deviating from the ordinary and customary meaning of recess, viz., a
cutout.
04-1418,-1423 4

-- 20 of 23 --

Regarding the construction of the claimed phrase “recess … formed immediately
beneath” recited in claim 1, I agree with the majority that “beneath” should not be
construed simply as “directly under” because that would exclude the embodiment
shown in figure 4. Ante at 11. Thus, consistent with the ordinary meaning of recess
and in the context of the specification, I would construe the limitation “recess … formed
immediately beneath” as “a cutout beginning at a point immediately adjacent to the point
directly under the cutting edge surface.” But I would not read in an additional limitation
with respect to the angle θ.
The majority construes the limitation “recess formed below” (claim 3) to have the
same scope as “recess … formed immediately beneath” (claim 1). Ante at 12. Under
the doctrine of claim differentiation, “there is presumed to be a difference in meaning
and scope when different words or phrases are used in separate claims.” Tandon Corp.
v. United States Int’l Trade Comm’n, 831 F.2d 1017, 1023 (Fed. Cir. 1987). Although
claim differentiation only creates a presumption that each claim in a patent has a
different scope and is “not a hard and fast rule of construction,” Kraft Foods, Inc. v. Int’l
Trading Co., 203 F.3d 1362, 1368 (Fed. Cir. 2000) (quoting Comark Communications,
Inc. v. Harris Corp., 156 F.3d 1182, 1186 (Fed. Cir. 1998)), in this case, I see no basis
to overcome the presumption.
The majority marshals two arguments in support of its conclusion that the
limitation “recess formed below” and the limitation “recess … formed immediately
beneath” should be construed identically. First, because the majority’s construction of
the term “recess” requires having a particular cutout angle, the majority reasons that the
presence of a cutout angle necessitates construing the limitation “recess formed below”
04-1418,-1423 5

-- 21 of 23 --

as a recess located immediately beneath. Ante at 12. For the reasons set forth above,
I do not find that the claimed term “recess” requires any structural angular limitation.
Second, the majority reasons that to read the limitation “recess formed below”
more broadly than “recess formed immediately beneath” would be contrary to a stated
objective of the invention—to minimize contact pressure between the surfaces of the
inner cutter and outer cutter blades. Ante at 12. But the invention has two objectives:
minimizing contact pressure and preventing shaving debris from adhering. Both claim 1
and claim 3 need not be construed “in a manner that would lead to the solution of both
prior art problems.” Honeywell, 298 F.3d at 1326; see Resonate Inc. v. Alteon
Websystems, 338 F.3d 1360, 1367 (Fed. Cir. 2003) (“The issue at this point may be
stated thus: when the written description sets out two different problems present in the
prior art, is it necessary that the invention claimed, and thus each and every claim in the
patent, address both problems? We conclude that on the record in this case, the answer
is no.”) Claim 3 only requires that the recess be located below, and not immediately
beneath, the cutting edge surface. Because I do not find any redefinition of the term or
any disavowal of claim scope in the intrinsic evidence, I would ascribe to the limitation
“recess formed below” its ordinary and customary meaning of a cutout located “at a
lower level” than the cutting edge surface. Webster’s Third New International Dictionary
202 (1993).
I agree with the majority that the district court erred in its claim construction in
requiring the recess to be “oriented in a horizontal direction, parallel to the cutting edge
surface.” As the majority notes, the patent specification does not support this claim
construction. Ante at 13. Based on that error and based on the district court’s
04-1418,-1423 6

-- 22 of 23 --

erroneous construction of the limitations “recess formed below” and “recess … formed
immediately beneath,” I would vacate the district court’s grant of summary judgment and
remand.
For the foregoing reasons, I respectfully dissent.
04-1418,-1423 7

-- 23 of 23 --