Unless the claim context or specification explicitly counsels otherwise, the term “connected to” ordinarily encompasses indirect linkages as well as direct linkages.
Background / Facts: The patent here is directed to a snowplow assembly that can be conveniently mounted on a vehicle and removed as a single unit. The patented features allow the user to remove heavy portions of the snowplow assembly from the front of the vehicle when the plow is not in use, thus reducing stress on the vehicle’s suspension. This is achieved with several interconnected frames, including an “A-frame,” a “support frame,” and a “mounting frame,” with the claims specifying that “the A-frame and the support frame are connected to the mounting frame.”
Issue(s): Whether the term “connected to” requires a direct connection between the A-frame and the mounting frame.
Holding(s): No. The court noted that the ordinary meaning of “connected to” encompasses indirect linkages and that the specification here uses variations of the term “connect” to describe indirect connections. For example, the specification states that the snowplow blade “is connectable to the mounting frame … through an A-frame,” implying contemplation of an indirect connection. The court found that the patent “does not at any point limit the connection between the A-frame and mounting frame to a ‘direct’ connection” as stated by the district court.