Opinion ID: 786974
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Pumping Means

Text: 29 TI Group next argues that the district court erroneously construed the term pumping means as a means-plus-function limitation under 35 U.S.C. § 112, paragraph 6, resulting in a more narrow definition than called for by the written description. TI Group argues that the district court should not have analyzed the limitation under § 112, paragraph 6, because the limitation specified any necessary structure required. See Cole v. Kimberly-Clark Corp., 102 F.3d 524, 530-31 (Fed.Cir.1996) (noting that, in order to invoke § 112, paragraph 6, the alleged means-plus-function claim element must not recite a definite structure which performs the described function). VDO argues that the phrase pumping means clearly gives rise to a presumption that § 112, paragraph 6 applies and that TI Group has not rebutted the presumption, because the structure recited does not perform the stated function. 30 The claim limitation at issue recites not only a pumping means, but its structure (including a nozzle and a venturi tube in alignment with the nozzle), location (being located within the reservoir in the region of the opening), and operation (the passage of fuel out of the nozzle and through the venturi tube causing fuel to be entrained through the opening into the interior of the reservoir). While the use of the word means gives rise to a presumption that § 112, paragraph 6 applies, the presumption is overcome by the recitation of the structure needed to perform the recited function. The written description informs and fully supports the structure recited in the claims: Jet pump 30 includes nozzle 54 and venturi tube 58. '714 patent, col. 4, II. 61-66. 31 The district court's construction, urged before this court by VDO, concludes that the pumping means must also include check valve 22, connecting tube 164, and jet block 144. Markman Order at 2. This construction, however, includes elements that are not necessary for performing the recited function. There is no indication in the patent that the function found by the district court, namely to pump fuel into the reservoir, id. at 1, requires anything other than the structure recited in the claim. Therefore, the proper construction of the pumping means limitation in claim 2 is a pump including a nozzle and a venturi tube in alignment with the nozzle. 32 In light of our conclusion that § 112, paragraph 6, is not invoked, we need not, and do not, address TI Group's alternative arguments about structure corresponding to pumping means, including its arguments regarding check valve 22 and connecting tube 164.