Restaurant Technologies v. Jersey Shore Chicken and Klee's Bar & Grill (CAFC 2009-1176) nonprecedential

Oilmatic made the system used by the two defendant restaurants. Oilmatic came into the action by filing a DJ. What started as three separate cases were consolidated.

District court claim construction sizzled away infringement in summary judgement.

First, the court looked at the contested means-plus-function elements of claim 1. The court determined that the term "means for metering oil to said fryer in predetermined amounts" of claim 1, paragraph (d)(iii), had the function of "supplying oil in a regulated or measured amount," and a corresponding structure of "a manually or electronically operated trigger valve . . ." with a squeezable nozzle. Id at *11-12. The court further found that the "control means" of claim 1, paragraph (e), had the functions of "(1) selectively operating the filtering, waste, supply, and fryer valve means, and (2) selecting a pipe path between a predetermined pair of stations," and corresponding structures of "a manual system of push-pull knobs, or a partially or completely automated system comprised of microprocessor controls." Id. at *13-14. The court found that the piping network of claim 8 could be given its ordinary meaning. Id. at *17.

The failure to infringe was plain: a switch wasn't the same as a valve.

[T]he [district] court found that the accused device did not have the same or an equivalent structure to a squeezable trigger valve with a nozzle. Id. at *16. According to the court, neither the switch nor the push start button on the dipstick assembly is a valve. Id. Nor is either the switch or the push start button the equivalent of a squeezable valve...

There were other differences.

The dipstick [switch] operates by activating one of two pumps, which the court found to be a substantially different manner of operation than the '511 patent's disclosed structure of push-pull knobs mechanically linked to valves. Id. Nor did the accused machine have identical structure to microprocessor controls or their equivalents, as it was not completely or partially automated. Id. at *12.

On appeal, a kindly view of dictionaries, which Phillips v. AWH generally frowned upon, but all things in their proper place.

Our claim construction analysis begins with considering the language of the claims themselves. See Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1314 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc). However, "claims must be read in view of the specification, of which they are a part." Id. at 1315 (quotation marks omitted). In addition, courts may "rely on dictionary definitions when construing claim terms, so long as the dictionary definition does not contradict any definition found in or ascertained by a reading of the patent documents." Id. at 1322-23 (quoting Vitronics Corp. v. Conceptronic, Inc., 90 F.3d 1576, 1584 n.6 (Fed. Cir. 1996)).

The scope of a means-plus-function claim is always circumscribed by a specification's disclosed structure.

Claim terms in the means-plus-function format are construed in a two-step process. Omega Eng'g, Inc. v. Raytek Corp., 334 F.3d 1314, 1322 (Fed. Cir. 2003). First, the court identifies the claimed function based on the claim language and limitations. Cardiac Pacemakers, Inc. v. St. Jude Med., Inc., 296 F.3d 1106, 1113 (Fed. Cir. 2002). Second, the court ascertains the corresponding structures disclosed in the specification for performing that function. Omega Eng'g, 334 F.3d at 1322. The claim "shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure . . . described in the specification and equivalents thereof." 35 U.S.C. § 112 ¶ 6.

In order to establish infringement of a means-plus-function term, a patentee must show that "the relevant structure in the accused device perform[s] the identical function recited in the claim and [is] identical or equivalent to the corresponding structure in the specification." Odetics, Inc. v. Storage Technology Corp., 185 F.3d 1259, 1267 (Fed. Cir. 1999) (citations omitted).

While claim 1 was means-plus-function, the contested limitation of claim 8 was not.

For claim 1, having pulled the definition of 'metering' from Webster's dictionary as 'supplying in a regulated or measured amount,' the only disclosed structure in the patent was "a squeezable trigger valve with a nozzle and its equivalents." An adept prosecutor using the means-plus-function claim form is well advised to have a bevy of embodiments, so as not to sphincter claim coverage. That was the failing in the patent at issue: mostly a single disclosed embodiment.

The control mechanisms were disclosed as either push-pull knobs or microprocessors. Naturally RTI wanted everything in between manual and automated.

Appellees argue that there is no "continuum of corresponding structures," and the court properly found that Oilmatic's three-position selector switch and push button that activated a pump were not equivalent to either push-pull knobs or microprocessor controls.

To which the courts agreed.

The claim 8 conundrum was over "interconnecting" the piping system. The courts looked at the spec, which read that ""[t]he stations are interconnected by piping ... capable of carrying the required flow of cooking oil between selected stations for the various purposes as described below." '511 patent, col. 4 ll. 46-49." Single-minded and sloppy specification drafting led to noninfringement.

Because the accused machine does not contain a network interconnecting its various elements, it does not literally infringe the limitation of claim 8, paragraph (e). In particular, the Oilmatic system has one pipeline running from the supply tank to the fryer, one line running from the fryer to the waste station, and a separately housed filter, which connects only to the fryer. Even if the fryer connects these elements, there is no interconnection. Rather, there is one pipe path in the supply direction and one in the waste direction.

Affirmed.

If you want a patent that cooks, contact Platinum Patents.