Opinion ID: 786974
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Routing Means

Text: 38 TI Group argues that the district court made two errors in construing the claim limitation means for routing a first portion of the output of high pressure fuel to the supply port and a second portion of the output of high pressure fuel to the pumping means, also referred to as the routing means limitation. The district court construed this limitation by first determining that the function is to route the fuel to jet pump 30 and through check valve 38 to the injectors. Markman Order at 2. The district court then determined that the structure that performed this function encompasses main housing 140, check valve 38, supply nozzle 134, and the associated structure leading to jet pump 30. Id. TI Group asserts the district court erred by considering only one preferred embodiment when determining the scope of the term. TI Group contends that the district court's construction of routing means considered only the embodiment of Figures 2-9 and disregarded the embodiment shown in Figure 1, particularly the structure for routing fuel consisting of supply lines 98 and 106. See '714 patent, col. 5, II. 23-26; id. at Fig. 1. TI Group also contends that the district court included unnecessary structure in its construction of the routing means limitation. In particular, TI Group asserts that the inclusion of check valve 38 as part of the structure for the routing means was an error, because the check valve hinders the flow of fuel instead of routing it. VDO counters that Figure 1 is not an appropriate embodiment to consider when analyzing the structure that performs routing, because it is merely a schematic diagram. VDO also argues that the additional structures included by the district court in its determination of the structure of the routing means are required by the written description. Finally, VDO argues that TI Group's argument that check valve 38 does not route is incorrect. 39 Neither party disputes that routing means is a means-plus-function limitation, subject to interpretation under § 112, paragraph 6. Further, neither party disputes the district court's correct conclusion that the function of the routing means is to route the fuel to jet pump 30 and through check valve 38 to the injectors. Markman Order at 2. The sole dispute is over the structure corresponding to this function. TI Group correctly notes that, generally, [w]hen multiple embodiments in the specification correspond to the claimed function, proper application of § 112, [paragraph 6] reads the claim element to embrace each of those embodiments. Micro Chem., Inc. v. Great Plains Chem. Co., 194 F.3d 1250, 1258 (Fed.Cir.1999) (citing Serrano v. Telular Corp., 111 F.3d 1578, 1583 (Fed.Cir.1997)). Although VDO attempts to argue that Figure 1 is not a separate embodiment but is instead a schematic representation of the same embodiment illustrated in Figures 2-9, it fails to find support for that position in the written description. According to the patent, Figure 1 is a schematic diagram representing the disclosed invention, see '714 patent, col. 4, II. 29-31, and Figures 2-9 illustrate a particularly preferred construction for the invention, see id. at col. 6, II. 62-64. A fair reading of the written description is that Figure 1 is a generalized representation of the invention and that Figures 2-9 depict a specific, and preferred, embodiment. Nothing in the written description indicates otherwise. VDO's other arguments have been carefully considered and are not persuasive. Therefore, we conclude that the structure in the '714 patent corresponding to the routing means claim limitation includes, in one embodiment, the main housing 140, the connecting tube 164, the nozzle 134, and the hose 130, and in another representation, lines 98 and 106.