Opinion ID: 878
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Means for metering oil

Text: The parties do not contest that claim 1, paragraph (d)(iii), “means for metering oil” has the function of “supplying oil in a regulated or measured amount.” Rather, RTI argues that the “means for metering” should be construed to include as equivalent structure any nozzle valve. In support of its argument, RTI cites expert testimony that 2009-1176 9 any trigger mechanism would be equivalent to the squeezable trigger valve, whether lever, button, or some other structure, including either the pump or the dipstick with a triggering button of the accused product. RTI proposes that Oilmatic’s dipstick assembly is identical to a manually or electronically operated trigger valve, and that, in the alternative, the dipstick assembly, coupled with a pump, is an equivalent to the relevant disclosed structure. Appellees respond that the court properly construed claim 1, paragraph (d)(iii), to claim a corresponding structure of a squeezable trigger valve based on the descriptions in the specification, rather than solely relying on expert testimony. Appellees also argue that the district court was correct in finding that a “positive displacement gear pump with . . . an input shaft rotated in a single direction,” so that rotation, not squeezing, performs the function of metering oil to the fryer is not an equivalent structure. Appellees further argue that the court correctly excluded as an equivalent the trigger mechanism on the dipstick because it is not a valve. We agree with the district court and the parties as to the claimed function, which is “supplying oil in a regulated or measured amount.” Claim Construction Opinion, 2007 WL 446910 at  (citing Merriam-Webster Dictionary (2005)). We further agree with the court that the disclosed structure corresponding to the function of claim 1’s paragraph (d)(iii) is a squeezable trigger valve with a nozzle and its equivalents. The specification states: Fryer station 20 comprises a pair of valves 46 and 48 positioned in pipe lines intersecting with a coupling 49 attached to one end of flexible line 50. The other end of flexible line 50 contains squeezable nozzle valve 52... The function of the fryer station 20 is to allow the proper metering of fresh or recycled filtered oil into the fryer vat. 2009-1176 10 ′511 patent, col. 5 ll. 17-21; see also id. at col. 5 ll. 55-62 (“[a]n operator [] places trigger valve 52 having a nozzle 52a into a selected fryer vat and squeezes trigger valve 52 into an open position. Cooking oil follows the selected pipe path extending . . . through . . . open trigger valve 52 into vat 44“). Although any trigger mechanism, such as a lever or button might perform the claimed function, the structure recited repeatedly and consistently in the specification in relation to the function is a squeezable trigger valve. We note that, consistent with the specification, the squeezable trigger valve may be completely or partially automated. Id. at col. 10 ll. 46-49. We further agree with the district court’s finding that no reasonable fact finder could conclude that the accused structure is identical or equivalent to the relevant disclosed structure. First, the dipstick assembly does not perform the identical function to a squeezable trigger valve, because it does not regulate the flow of oil when the button is depressed. Thus, the dipstick assembly alone does not satisfy claim 1’s paragraph (d)(iii). Secondly, although the dipstick assembly, in conjunction with the pump, may perform the identical function as the squeezable trigger valve, the differences between the dipstick assembly plus a pump on the one hand, and a squeezable trigger valve with a nozzle, on the other, are not insubstantial. For example, the dipstick assembly and pump are activated with a push button on the dipstick assembly that energizes the pump; fluid pressure in the line then overcomes a springloaded check valve to pour into the fryer. The accused system thus uses a pump and fluid pressure to overcome a check valve, whereas the patent claims a valve that is squeezed. Thus, no reasonable fact finder could have found that the dipstick assembly, alone or in conjunction with the pump, meets the limitations of claim 1, paragraph (d)(iii). 2009-1176 11