UNITED STATES INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION
`WASHINGTON DC
`
`Before the Honorable Clark S. Cheney
`Chief Administrative Law Judge
`
`
`In the Matter of
`
`CERTAIN CRAFTING MACHINES
`AND COMPONENTS THEREOF
`
`
`Inv. No. 337-TA-1426
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`COMPLAINANT’S OPENING CLAIM CONSTRUCTION BRIEF
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`I. 
`II. 
`
`III. 
`
`IV. 
`V. 
`VI. 
`
`INTRODUCTION .............................................................................................................. 1 
`LEGAL STANDARD ......................................................................................................... 2 
`A. 
`Claim Construction ................................................................................................. 2 
`B. 
`Indefiniteness .......................................................................................................... 2 
`BACKGROUND ................................................................................................................ 2 
`A. 
`The Asserted Patents ............................................................................................... 2 
`B. 
`Technical Background ............................................................................................ 2 
`AGREED TERMS .............................................................................................................. 3 
`LEVEL OF SKILL IN THE ART ...................................................................................... 3 
`DISPUTED TERMS ........................................................................................................... 3 
`A. 
`Terms from U.S. Patent Nos. 11,208,758 and 11,905,646 ..................................... 3 
`1.  “substrate” ......................................................................................................... 3 
`2.  “located within” ................................................................................................ 5 
`Terms from U.S. Patent No. 11,208,758............................................................... 10 
`1.  “the shell”........................................................................................................ 10 
`Terms from U.S. Patent No. 11,905,646............................................................... 15 
`1.  “planar” ........................................................................................................... 15 
`VII.  CONCLUSION ................................................................................................................. 17 
`
`
`
`B. 
`
`C. 
`
`i
`
`

`

`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`
`
`Page(s)
`
`Cases
`
`3M Innovative Properties Co. v. Tredegar Corp.,
`725 F.3d 1315 (Fed. Cir. 2013)..................................................................................................7
`
`ActiveVideo Networks, Inc. v. Verizon Commc’ns, Inc.,
`694 F.3d 1312 (Fed. Cir. 2012)..................................................................................................6
`
`Certain Bio-Layer Interferometers and Components Thereof,
`Inv. No. 337-TA-1344, Comm’n Op., 2023 WL 5605694 (U.S.I.T.C. Aug. 24,
`2023) ..................................................................................................................................11, 12
`
`Certain Filament Light-Emitting Diodes and Products Containing Same
`(II), Inv. No. 337-TA-1220, Order No. 39 (U.S.I.T.C. June 15, 2021) .....................................4
`
`Certain Fitness Devices, Streaming Components Thereof, and Systems Containing
`Same,
`Inv. No. 337-TA-1265, Initial Determination, 2022 WL 7027226 (U.S.I.T.C.
`Sept. 9, 2022) .............................................................................................................2, 4, 11, 15
`
`Certain Icemaking Machines & Components Thereof,
`Inv. No. 337-TA-1369, Order No. 10, 2024 WL 111113 (U.S.I.T.C. Jan. 4,
`2024) ..................................................................................................................................1, 2, 5
`
`Energizer Holdings, Inc. v. Int’l Trade Comm’n,
`435 F.3d 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2006)................................................................................................11
`
`Housey Pharms., Inc. v. Astrazeneca UK Ltd.,
`366 F.3d 1348 (Fed. Cir. 2004)..................................................................................................1
`
`IRIS Corp. Berhad v. United States,
`843 F. App’x 316 (Fed. Cir. 2021) ............................................................................................4
`
`Nautilus, Inc. v. Biosig Instruments, Inc.,
`572 U.S. 898 (2014) ...................................................................................................................2
`
`Novo Indus., L.P. v. Micro Molds Corp.,
`350 F.3d 1348 (Fed. Cir. 2003)..........................................................................................11, 12
`
`Omega Eng’g, Inc. v. Raytek Corp.,
`334 F.3d 1314 (Fed. Cir. 2003)................................................................................................17
`
`One-E-Way, Inc. v. Int’l Trade Comm’n,
`859 F.3d 1059 (Fed. Cir. 2017)..................................................................................................2
`
`ii
`
`

`

`Pavo Sols. LLC v. Kingston Tech. Co.,
`35 F.4th 1367 (Fed. Cir. 2022) ................................................................................................11
`
`Phillips v. AWH Corp.,
`415 F.3d 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2005)..................................................................................................5
`
`Thorner v. Sony Computer Ent. Am. LLC,
`669 F.3d 1362 (Fed. Cir. 2012)..................................................................................................1
`
`Wasica Fin. GmbH v. Cont’l Auto. Sys., Inc.,
`853 F.3d 1272 (Fed. Cir. 2017)..................................................................................................1
`
`Other Authorities
`
`M.P.E.P. § 2111.03 ..........................................................................................................................4
`
`M.P.E.P. § 2173.05(e) ....................................................................................................................11
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`iii
`
`

`

`Complainant’s
`Exhibit No.
`JXM-001
`JXM-002
`JXM-003
`JXM-004
`JXM-005
`CXM-001
`CXM-002
`
`CXM-003
`CXM-004
`
`TABLE OF EXHIBITS
`
`Description
`
`U.S. Patent No. 11,208,758
`U.S. Patent No. 11,905,646
`Chart of Agreed and Disputed Constructions (as filed on Feb. 20, 2025)
`File History from U.S. Patent No. 11,208,758
`File History from U.S. Patent No. 11,905,646
`Redline comparison of U.S. Patent No. 11,208,758 to 11,905,646
`2/3/2025 HTVRont Resp. to Interrog. 9 (responses to other interrogatories
`have been redacted)
`2/17/2025 email from H. Kiepura
`U.S. Patent No. 5,252,171 (“Anderson”)
`
`iv
`
`

`

`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`Complainant Cricut, Inc. (“Cricut”) respectfully submits this brief in support of its
`
`proposed constructions. The patents-in-suit use plain English words that are readily
`
`understandable—terms such as “located within” or “planar”—and need not be construed. As the
`
`Chief Administrative Law Judge (“CALJ”) knows, “there is a ‘heavy presumption’ that the
`
`language in the claim carries its ordinary and customary meaning.” See, e.g., Certain Icemaking
`
`Machines & Components Thereof, Inv. No. 337-TA-1369, Order No. 10, 2024 WL 111113, at *8
`
`(U.S.I.T.C. Jan. 4, 2024) (Cheney, CJ) (citing Housey Pharms., Inc. v. Astrazeneca UK Ltd., 366
`
`F.3d 1348, 1352 (Fed. Cir. 2004)). “There are only two exceptions” to this general rule: when a
`
`patentee acts as his own lexicographer or when the patentee disavows claim scope. Id. (quoting
`
`Thorner v. Sony Computer Ent. Am. LLC, 669 F.3d 1362, 1365 (Fed. Cir. 2012)). As apparent
`
`from their proposed constructions, Hunan Sijiu Technology, Co. Ltd., HK Sijiu International Share
`
`Co., Ltd., and Guangdong Rongtu Technology Co., Ltd. (collectively, “Respondent”) flout this
`
`rule and seek to use claim construction as an exercise in reading limitations into the claims.
`
`There is no lexicography or disclaimer to support Respondent’s constructions, and
`
`Respondent’s constructions contradict the intrinsic record. It is well-established that applicants
`
`determine the scope of their claims when applying for patents. It is not the role of claim
`
`construction to narrow claims past their plain meaning for the benefit of the accused infringer. See
`
`Wasica Fin. GmbH v. Cont’l Auto. Sys., Inc., 853 F.3d 1272, 1282 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (“[A]bsent a
`
`clear disavowal or alternative lexicography by a patentee, he or she ‘is free to choose a broad term
`
`and expect to obtain the full scope of its plain and ordinary meaning.’”)
`
`1
`
`

`

`II.
`
`LEGAL STANDARD
`A.
`
`Claim Construction
`
`The CALJ is familiar with the legal principles behind claim construction. See, e.g., Certain
`
`Icemaking Machines, 2024 WL 111113, at *5-*6. Accordingly, Complainant will not rehash those
`
`principles here, but will cite to relevant legal authority in connection with the arguments below.
`
`B.
`
`Indefiniteness
`
`Patents are presumed valid, so “any fact critical to a holding on indefiniteness . . . must be
`
`proven by the challenger by clear and convincing evidence.” One-E-Way, Inc. v. Int’l Trade
`
`Comm’n, 859 F.3d 1059, 1062 (Fed. Cir. 2017). “A patent claim is invalid for indefiniteness if it
`
`fails to inform those skilled in the art about the scope of the invention ‘with reasonable certainty’
`
`when it is viewed in light of the specification and prosecution history.” See Certain Fitness
`
`Devices, Streaming Components Thereof, and Systems Containing Same, Inv. No. 337-TA-1265,
`
`Initial Determination, 2022 WL 7027226, at *24 (U.S.I.T.C. Sept. 9, 2022) (Cheney, CALJ)
`
`(quoting Nautilus, Inc. v. Biosig Instruments, Inc., 572 U.S. 898, 910 (2014)).
`
`III. BACKGROUND
`A.
`
`The Asserted Patents
`
`Among the Asserted Patents, Respondent seeks constructions for terms in two utility
`
`patents: U.S. Patent Nos. 11,208,758 (“the ’758 Patent,” JXM-001) and 11,905,646 (“the ’646
`
`Patent,” JXM-002). The ’758 Patent and ’646 Patent are part of the same patent family and share
`
`the same specification. See CXM-001 (redline comparison of the two patents).
`
`B.
`
`Technical Background
`
`The two utility patents are directed to “heat presses . . . as a means to adhere iron-on
`
`materials to fabric.” JXM-001 (’758 Patent) at 1:23–24. Prior heat presses were for the “industrial”
`
`scale, and they were “large, unwieldy, unsafe, and made with expensive materials.” Id. at 1:23-
`
`2
`
`

`

`32. The patents provide for “safe and cost effective heat press[es] which [are] capable of providing
`
`uniform, consistent and optimal heat in a home-use setting.” Id. The claims at issue for the
`
`Markman hearing are directed to the placement of components and how the components interact
`
`with one another.
`
`IV. AGREED TERMS
`
`The parties agreed to the constructions set forth in JXM-003 (chart of agreed and disputed
`
`constructions) and they request entry of those constructions.
`
`V.
`
`LEVEL OF SKILL IN THE ART
`
`The private parties agree that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have an
`
`undergraduate degree in industrial design, mechanical engineering, or equivalent education, and
`
`two years of experience relating to the design of consumer electronic products. CXM-002 at 20–
`
`21 (2/3/2025 HTVRont Resp. to Interrog. 9).
`
`VI. DISPUTED TERMS
`A.
`
`Terms from U.S. Patent Nos. 11,208,758 and 11,905,646
`1.
`
`“substrate”
`
`Claims
`
`’758 Patent, claims 1,
`4, 12, 13, 17, 18, 23
`’646 Patent, claim 14
`
`Complainant’s
`Construction
`“a supportive
`component.”
`
`Staff’s Construction Respondent’s
`Construction
`“structural support
`component distinct
`from the handle”
`
`Plain meaning, such as
`“structural support
`component distinct
`from the handle”
`
`The primary dispute between the parties is whether the substrate must be “distinct” from
`
`
`
`the handle, or whether the substrate is included as part of the claimed “handle.” The proposed
`
`construction put forward by Respondent and the Commission Investigative Staff (“Staff”)
`
`contradicts the claim language, seeks to exclude embodiments, and is unsupported.
`
`3
`
`

`

`a)
`
`Respondent’s Proposed Construction Contradicts the Claim
`Language
`
`The claim language itself resolves the dispute between the parties, where it recites that the
`
`substrate is included in the handle, and is therefore not “distinct” from the handle. Claim 1 of
`
`the ’758 Patent recites:
`
`a handle configured to withstand forces from a user, the handle including a
`substrate at least partially enclosed by a shell.
`
`JXM-001 (’758 Patent) at claim 1. Claim 13 of the ’758 Patent also recites “a handle including a
`
`substrate.” Id. at claim 13. “Claim construction begins with the plain language of the claim.” See
`
`Certain Fitness Devices, 2022 WL 7027226, at *20.
`
`Here, “there is no need to look further than the plain language of the claim.” IRIS Corp.
`
`Berhad v. United States, 843 F. App’x 316, 318 (Fed. Cir. 2021). The claim specifies the substrate
`
`is a component of the handle, and not a separate element, due to the use of the word “including”
`
`in the claim followed by a set of components. Id. at 318–19 (finding antenna was component of
`
`integrated circuit based on plain language of claim reciting “an integrated circuit including . . . an
`
`antenna”); see also M.P.E.P. § 2111.03 (“The transitional term ‘comprising’ . . . is synonymous
`
`with ‘including,’ ‘containing,’ or ‘characterized by.’”). In a recent investigation, the parties
`
`disputed whether the claimed “transparent plate” could be part of the claimed “lead frame,” and
`
`the CALJ found that the claim itself answered that question because it “explicitly recites ‘a lead
`
`frame including a transparent plate.’” Certain Filament Light-Emitting Diodes and Products
`
`Containing Same (II), Inv. No. 337-TA-1220, Order No. 39 at 12 (U.S.I.T.C. June 15, 2021)
`
`(Cheney, CALJ) (emphasis in original).
`
`The plain language of the claim is sufficient to reject Respondent’s and Staff’s construction.
`
`Claims 1 and 13 of the ’758 Patent recite that the handle is “including” the substrate. Requiring
`
`4
`
`

`

`that the substrate be “distinct from the handle,” as proposed by Respondent and Staff, is
`
`unsupported and incorrect.
`
`b)
`
`There is No Support for Adding the “Structural” Modifier
`
`The proposed construction from Respondent and Staff also raises an additional issue in that
`
`it further classifies the support as being “structural,” even though the specification never uses the
`
`words “structure” or “structural.” This modifier is made out of whole cloth.
`
`To the extent Respondent and Staff rely on exemplary language from the specification, that
`
`does not provide a basis for adding “structural.” The specification states, “[i]n some examples . . .
`
`substrate 20 provides the handle 16 support in order to withstand forces from the user.” JXM-001
`
`(’758 Patent) at 4:52–57 (emphasis added). The “general rule” for claim construction is that “the
`
`particular examples or embodiments discussed in the specification are not to be read into the claims
`
`as limitations.” Certain Icemaking Machines, 2024 WL 111113, at *6. If “structural” is merely
`
`intended to refer to the type of support disclosed in this specific embodiment, it is improper since
`
`the inventors did not see fit to include the “structural” modifier in the claims. Thus, if Respondent
`
`and the Staff seek for “structural” to add some other unspecified requirement to the claims, the
`
`approach should be rejected for lacking any support from the intrinsic record.
`
`2.
`
`“located within”
`
`Claims
`
`’758 Patent, claim 18
`’646 Patent, claims 5, 14
`
`Complainant’s
`Construction
`“located inside”
`
`Staff’s Construction Respondent’s
`Construction
`“fully enclosed by”
`
`Plain meaning, such
`as “located inside.”
`
`The term “located within” is written in plain English words, is readily understandable, and
`
`
`
`does not need to be construed to resolve any disputes between the parties. See Phillips v. AWH
`
`Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1314 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (when “commonly understood words” are used, the
`
`“ordinary meaning of claim language as understood by a person of skill in the art may be readily
`
`5
`
`

`

`apparent”); see also ActiveVideo Networks, Inc. v. Verizon Commc’ns, Inc., 694 F.3d 1312, 1325–
`
`26 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (finding that the “district court did not err in concluding that” the terms
`
`“superimposing the first indication over the display of the first anchor channel” and “including
`
`with the first indication a second indication” “have plain meanings that do not require additional
`
`construction”). The term “located within” is recited for several different components among the
`
`asserted claims:
`
`an electrical circuit located within the handle [’646 Patent, claim 5]
`
`a handle configured to withstand forces from a user and a substrate located within
`the handle [’646 Patent, claim 14]
`
`a substrate located within the handle. [’758 Patent, claim 18]
`
`Respondent seeks to limit “located within” to “fully enclosed by.” As a threshold matter,
`
`construing this term does not appear to resolve any live dispute between the parties. Rather,
`
`Respondent has indicated that this term relates solely to a potential redesign that has not yet been
`
`finished, the details of which have not been disclosed to Complainant. At bottom, the claim term
`
`simply means “located within,” as the patentee drafted the claim, and does not need to be construed.
`
`Whereas Staff’s proposed construction of “located inside” is merely an unnecessary rewording of
`
`this term, Respondent’s proposal to change “located within” to “fully enclosed by” is
`
`impermissible and unsupported. There is no lexicography or disclaimer to limit the scope of the
`
`claim.
`
`a)
`
`Prosecution History of the ’646 Patent
`
`The ’646 Patent issued from Application No. 17/644,867 (’867 Application). Claims 5 and
`
`14 of the ’646 Patent correlate with original claims 7 and 18, respectively, of the ’867 Application
`
`and were not amended during prosecution. See generally JXM-005 (’646 Patent File History).
`
`Thus, there is no disclaimer or lexicography to narrow the scope of “located within” in the ’646
`
`6
`
`

`

`Patent, either for the “electric circuit located within the handle” (claim 5) or the “substrate located
`
`within the handle” (claim 14). The “located within” limitation was not used to distinguish any
`
`prior art.
`
`b)
`
`Prosecution History of the ’758 Patent
`
`Respondent mistakenly argues that the plain and ordinary meaning of “located within” was
`
`narrowed based on an amendment made during prosecution of the ’758 Patent. CXM-003
`
`(2/17/2025 email from H. Kiepura) at 1. As discussed below, there was no clear disavowal of
`
`claim scope to further limit the claims beyond the “located within” language itself. See 3M
`
`Innovative Properties Co. v. Tredegar Corp., 725 F.3d 1315, 1329–30 (Fed. Cir. 2013) (“[O]ur
`
`cases do not support prescribing a more particularized meaning unless a narrower construction is
`
`required by the specification or prosecution history . . . [I]t is unnecessary to limit the plain
`
`language based on unclear statements in the specification and prosecution history.”).
`
`The ’758 Patent issued from Application No. 16/952,360 (“the ’360 Application”). Claim
`
`18 of the ’758 Patent correlates with original claim 36 of the ’360 Application. JXM-004 (’758
`
`Patent File History) at CRI00004103, CRI00004516. On April 30, 2021, the Applicant amended
`
`original claim 36 as follows:
`
`7
`
`

`

`
`JXM-004 (’758 Patent File History) at CRI00004304. The amendment merely recites “a substrate
`
`located within the handle,” and its plain language does not require that the substrate be “located
`
`entirely within” the handle or that the substrate is “fully enclosed by” the handle.
`
`Nor was there any argument-based disclaimer. The amendment was entered in response
`
`to the Examiner’s rejection based on U.S. Patent No. 5,252,171 (“Anderson”). The Examiner
`
`asserted that, in Anderson, “handle 22 is provided configured to withstand use and further
`
`including a pivoting connection to a substrate 26.” JXM-004 (’758 Patent File History) at
`
`CRI00004192 (2/1/2021 Office Action at 5). As shown in the figures from Anderson below,
`
`Anderson’s cantilever arm 26 (blue), which the Examiner mapped to the claimed “substrate,” is
`
`entirely outside of Anderson’s handle 22 (red):
`
`8
`
`

`

`CXM-004 (Anderson) at Figs. 1-2 (annotated).
`
`9
`
`
`
`

`

`In its argument accompanying the “located within” amendment, Applicant explained that
`
`Anderson’s cantilever arm 26 (blue) was not “located within” Anderson’s handle 22 (red), because
`
`“the handle 22 moves relative to the cantilever arm 26 (which Examiner correlates to the claimed
`
`‘substrate’) via the left lever 18.” JXM-004 (’758 Patent File History) at CRI00004308-09
`
`(4/30/2021 Resp. to Office Action at 8–9). Thus, the issue underlying the amendment and
`
`accompanying arguments was not whether the substrate was partially or “fully enclosed by” the
`
`handle; rather, the issue was whether the substrate in Anderson was even in the handle at all.
`
`Because there was no prosecution disclaimer, no narrowing of the claim scope is required or
`
`appropriate.
`
`B.
`
`Terms from U.S. Patent No. 11,208,758
`1.
`
`“the shell”
`
`Claims
`
`Complainant’s
`Construction
`’758 Patent, claims 19–20 The term is not indefinite.
`“The shell” is “a portion of
`the cover that at least
`partially encloses the
`substrate.”
`
`Staff’s
`Construction
`Indefinite, no
`antecedent basis.
`
`Respondent’s
`Construction
`Indefinite
`
`Complainant understands that the dispute concerning “the shell” does not pertain to the
`
`
`
`meaning of “shell.” Rather, Respondents and Staff seek indefiniteness on account of a
`
`typographical error because the claims recite “the” shell, rather than “a” shell. Claims 19–20
`
`(containing “the shell”) are provided below, as is independent claim 18 for context:
`
`18. A heat press comprising:
`
`a body including a first end and a second end;
`
`a heat plate including a metallic member at least partially embedded in a plate and
`located proximate the first end of the body, the heat plate configured to engage
`ironable materials;
`
`10
`
`

`

`a handle located proximate the second end of the body and configured to withstand
`forces from a user; a substrate located within the handle;
`
`a cover covering a portion of the body and the handle;
`
`a control compartment spaced away from and at least indirectly electrically coupled
`to the heat plate;
`
`an insulation portion positioned between the control compartment and the heat
`plate; and
`
`an electrical circuit located in contact with the substrate.
`
`19. The heat press of claim 18, wherein the shell is formed from plastic.
`
`20. The heat press of claim 18, wherein the shell forms a cavity for housing an
`electrical circuit at least indirectly electrically coupled to the heat plate and the
`control compartment.
`
`Though “a shell” is not expressly recited in independent claim 18, that is not fatal to claims 18-19.
`
`The requirement of antecedent basis is a rule of patent drafting, administered during
`patent examination. Energizer Holdings, Inc. v. Int’l Trade Comm’n, 435 F.3d 1366,
`1370 (Fed. Cir. 2006). “Obviously, however, the failure to provide explicit
`antecedent basis for terms does not always render a claim indefinite.” MPEP §
`2173.05(e) (9th ed. 2019). “If the scope of a claim would be reasonably
`ascertainable by those skilled in the art” when read in light of the rest of the
`specification, a technical deficiency in antecedent basis does not doom the claim.
`See Energizer Holdings, 435 F.3d at 1370.
`
`Certain Fitness Devices, 2022 WL 7027226, at *50 (citing Energizer Holdings, Inc. v. Int’l Trade
`
`Comm’n, 435 F.3d 1366, 1370 (Fed. Cir. 2006)). The Commission has likewise held that a “claim
`
`term that lacks antecedent basis does not render the claim indefinite if ‘the scope of a claim would
`
`be reasonably ascertainable by those skilled in the art.” Certain Bio-Layer Interferometers and
`
`Components Thereof, Inv. No. 337-TA-1344, Comm’n Op., 2023 WL 5605694, at *7 (U.S.I.T.C.
`
`Aug. 24, 2023); see Pavo Sols. LLC v. Kingston Tech. Co., 35 F.4th 1367, 1373–78 (Fed. Cir.
`
`2022) (using claim construction to correct an obvious typographical error in the claim).1 Here, the
`
`
`1 The Commission has determined that it can correct obvious and minor clerical errors in a claim
`based on the Novo standard, if the “correction is not subject to reasonable debate based on
`
`
`11
`
`

`

`scope of the claims is reasonably understandable to a POSITA based on an examination of the
`
`claims, specification, and prosecution history.
`
`a)
`
`The Specification Clarifies the Scope of “the shell”
`
`Claim 18 of the ’758 Patent recites a “heat press” that, inter alia, includes three high-level
`
`components: “a body including a first end and a second end,” “a heat plate … located proximate
`
`the first end of the body,” and “a handle located proximate the second end of the body.” Claim 18
`
`further recites “a cover covering a portion of the body and the handle.” These components are
`
`illustrated in Figure 1 and further discussed in the specification:
`
`“Referring
`
`to FIG.
`
`1,
`
`in
`
`some
`
`implementations, a heat press 10 includes a
`
`body 11, a cover 12, a handle 16, a control
`
`compartment 14, an electrical cord 13 and
`
`a heat plate 18. The body 11 has a first end
`
`1 and a second end 2. The heat plate 18 is
`
`located proximate the first end 1 and the
`
`handle 16 is located proximate the second
`
`end 2.”
`
`
`
`
`
`
`consideration of the claim language and the specification” and “the prosecution history does not
`suggest a different interpretation of the claims.” Novo Indus., L.P. v. Micro Molds Corp., 350
`F.3d 1348, 1354 (Fed. Cir. 2003) (analyzed by Certain Bio-Layer Interferometers at *8-*19).
`
`12
`
`

`

`JXM-001 (’758 Patent) at Fig. 1, 3:31-37.2 As can be seen in Figure 1, “the cover 12 covers a
`
`portion of the body 11 and handle 16” and “forms an outer barrier of the heat press 10.” JXM-001
`
`(’758 Patent) at 3:38-42. A portion of that cover 11, referred to as “the shell,” at least partially
`
`encloses three of the components of the heat press: control compartment 14, electric circuit 16,
`
`and substrate 20 (not shown in Figure 1):
`
`In some examples, the cover is made of a thermoplastic and the handle includes a
`metal substrate at least partially enclosed by a plastic shell. The plastic shell
`forms a cavity for housing an electrical circuit at least indirectly electrically
`coupled to the heat plate and the control compartment.
`
`JXM-001 (’758 Patent) at 2:4–9 (emphasis added).
`
`b)
`
`The Surrounding Claims Further Clarify the Scope of
`“the Shell”
`
`The reason “the shell” appears in Claims 19-20 with “the” is because of a minor clerical
`
`error that occurred during prosecution. This can be readily seen when comparing issued Claims 1,
`
`10, and 11 of the ’758 Patent with Claims 36-38 of the ’360 Application (corresponding to issued
`
`claims 18-20 of the ’758 Patent). Consistent with the specification, other claims of the ’758 Patent
`
`further clarify the shell. Comparison is shown between Claims 1, 10, and 11 on the left, and
`
`original Claims 36–38 (corresponding to issued Claims 18–20) on the right:
`
`
`2 Figures 4 and 5 of the ’758 Patent illustrate the control compartment, electric circuit, and
`substrate with the cover removed. JXM-001 (’758 Patent) at 3:12-15.
`
`13
`
`

`

`’758 Patent, Issued Claims
`
`’360 Application, 4/30/2021 Amendment
`
`36. (Currently Amended) A heat press[[,]] comprising:
`
` a
`
` body including a first end and a second end;
`a heat plate including a metallic member at least
`partially embedded in a plate and located
`proximate the first end of the body, the heat plate
`configured to engage ironable materials;
`
` a
`
` handle located proximate the second end of the body
`and configured to withstand forces
`from a user, the handle including a substrate at least
`partially enclosed by a shell;
`a substrate located within the handle;
`
` a
`
` a
`
` cover covering a portion of the body and the handle;
`
` control compartment spaced away from and at least
`indirectly electrically coupled to the
`heat plate;
`
`an insulation portion positioned between the control
`compartment and the heat plate; and
`an electrical circuit located in contact with the
`substrate. [issued claim 18]
`37. (Previously Presented) The heat press of claim 36,
`wherein the shell is formed from plastic. [issued claim
`19]
`38. (Previously Presented) The heat press of claim 36,
`wherein the shell forms a cavity for housing an
`electrical circuit at least indirectly electrically coupled
`to the heat plate and the control
`Compartment. [issued claim 20]
`
`1. A heat press comprising:
`
` a
`
` heat plate configured to engage
`ironable materials;
`
` a
`
` handle configured to withstand
`forces from a user, the handle
`including a substrate at least
`partially enclosed by a shell;
`
` a
`
` control compartment spaced away
`from and at least indirectly
`electrically coupled to the heat plate;
`
`and an insulation portion in direct
`contact with the substrate and
`positioned between the control
`compartment and the heat plate.
`
`10. The heat press of claim 1,
`wherein the shell is formed from
`plastic.
`11. The heat press of claim 1,
`wherein: the shell forms a cavity;
`and an electrical circuit is at least
`partially disposed within the cavity
`and at least indirectly electrically
`coupled to the heat plate and the
`control compartment.
`
`
`JXM-001 (’758 Patent) at Claims 1, 10, 11; JXM-004 (’758 Patent File History) at CRI00004304
`
`(4/30/2021 Resp. to Office Action at 4), CRI00004516. Claim 1 of the ’758 Patent recites: “a
`
`handle configured to withstand forces from a user, the handle including a substrate at least partially
`
`enclosed by a shell.” Dependent claim 10 adds that the shell is formed from plastic, then adds that
`
`the electrical circuit is also located at least partially within the shell. In a parallel manner, claims
`
`14
`
`

`

`19-20 (application claims 37-38) add to the claimed shell that it is formed from plastic and houses
`
`an electrical circuit, respectively. A POSITA in reviewing the prosecution history for application
`
`claim 36 (issued claim 18), in connection with the specification and other issued claims, would
`
`have ascertained that “the shell” of claims 19-20 is a portion of the cover that at least partially
`
`encloses the substrate.3
`
`C.
`
`Terms from U.S. Patent No. 11,905,646
`1.
`
`“planar”
`
`Claims
`
`’646 Patent, Claims 9,
`11, 13, 16
`
`Complainant’s
`Construction
`No construction
`necessary; plain and
`ordinary meaning.
`
`Staff’s
`Construction
`Plain meaning,
`such as “flat, i.e.,
`no curvature.”
`
`Respondent’s
`Construction
`“flat, i.e., no curvature”
`
`
`
`The term “planar” is clear on its own and does not need to be construed. The purpose of
`
`claim construction is not to find alternate ways to phrase the claim language, but is instead to
`
`resolve disputes. See Certain Fitness Devices, 2022 WL 7027226, at *20 n.2 (“Only those claim
`
`terms that are in controversy need to be construed, and only to the extent necessary to resolve the
`
`controversy.”). There is no need to construe the word “planar” as proposed by Respondent and
`
`Staff to resolve any dispute in this investigation.
`
`a)
`
`The Term “Planar” Is Understandable On Its Own
`
`The term “planar” is understandable on its own, especially when viewed in light of the
`
`surrounding claim language and specification. Claim 9 of the ’646 Patent has a “handle” element
`
`that recites: “a handle, a hand clearance area, and a control panel forming the second end of the
`
`body, the control panel comprising a display having a planar surface.” JXM-002 (’646 Patent)
`
`
`3 Claim 20 provides further structure to the “shell” in that it must also house the electrical circuit.
`
`15
`
`

`

`at Claim 9 (emphasis added). The specification illustrates the display (annotated blue) as having
`
`a planar surface in Fig. 8A, which is a cross-sectional view taken through the line of Fig. 4.
`
`
`
`See JXM-002 (’646 Patent) at Figs. 4, 8A, 3:20–21, 4:36 (“display 17”).
`
`b)
`
`Respondent’s Proposed Construction is Unsupported
`
`The proposed construction of “planar” from Respondent and Staff raises two issues. First,
`
`the word “flat” could be read to add a requirement that the display be horizontal or level, but that
`
`extra requirement would exclude the embodiment shown in Fig. 8A, where