flow of automobile traffic on thoroughfares. Wavetronix accuses the automatic setupfeature of EIS’s Remote Traffic Microwave Sensor (“RTMS”) X3 monitoring device ofinfringing one independent claim and several dependent claims of the ’916 patent,literally or under the doctrine of equivalents.The district court granted summary judgment of non-infringement to EIS.Wavetronix appeals the judgment of non-infringement, and EIS cross-appeals dismissalof its counterclaims of invalidity and unenforceability. We conclude that summary judgment of non-infringement is proper, and we affirm the district court’s judgment.
I. BACKGROUNDA. The Patent in Suit and Its Technological FieldUrban planners require accurate counts of vehicular traffic in order to plan theconstruction of new thoroughfares as well as to determine the optimal ways to useexisting thoroughfares. It is often useful to know how much traffic travels in a particularlane, for instance a High-Occupancy Vehicle (HOV) lane, as compared to other laneson the same thoroughfare. Numerous sensor devices using, for example, radar oracoustic signals have been developed to monitor the flow of vehicle traffic acrossseveral lanes of a road or highway. The ’916 patent’s Figure 5 illustrates a roadsidesensor unit with a field of vision extending across several lanes of a street.
Wavetronix argues that there are legal and factual errors in the districtcourt’s opinion and that such errors warrant reversal. The existence of any such errorsdoes not, in itself, compel reversal. This court sits to review judgments, not opinions.Stratoflex, Inc. v. Aeroquip Corp., 713 F.2d 1530, 1540 (Fed. Cir. 1983). The party thatprevailed below may defend a judgment on any ground which the law and record permitthat would not expand the relief it has been granted. United States v. N.Y. Tel. Co., 434U.S. 159, 166 n.8 (1977).2008-1129,-11602