DRVEN, the appellate court disagreed with Judge Krieger's claim construction in the Phillips case, choosing a more restrictive definition of the term "baffles". Below are some excerpts from their ruling. They ruled that the term "baffles", which Judge Krieger construed, was not subject to 35 U.S.C Section 112, paragraph 6, and therefore Judge Krieger erred in her claim construction. So, she certainly did not break any law, but she did incorrectly apply 35 U.S.C Section 112 to the claim term.
----------
Because the term "baffles" is not subject to section 112, paragraph 6, we agree with the panel that the district court erred by limiting the term to corresponding structures disclosed in the specification and their equivalents. Accordingly, we must determine the correct construction of the structural term "baffles," as used in the '798 patent.
In sum, we reject AWH's arguments in favor of a restrictive definition of the term "baffles." Because we disagree with the district court's claim construction, we reverse the summary judgment of noninfringement. In light of our decision on claim construction, it is necessary to remand the infringement claims to the district court for further proceedings.
