Bristol Co. v. Bosch Rexroth Inc. (684 F. Supp. 2d 1245, 2010)

United States District Court for the District of Colorado 2010-02-01

Citations

Full opinion text

ORDER REGARDING CLAIM CONSTRUCTION

PHILIP A. BRIMMER, District Judge.

This matter is before the Court for the construction of U.S. Patent No. 5,096,125 and U.S. Patent No. 5,186,396, both held by plaintiff Bristol Company Limited Partnership. Bristol has brought suit against defendants Bosch Rexroth Incorporated, Robert Bosch Corporation, and Bosch Rexroth Canada Corporation/Corporation Bosch Rexroth Canada (collectively, “Bosch”), charging that Bosch’s devices infringe Bristol’s patents. However, before the infringement issues can be addressed, I must determine what the disputed terms in the patents mean. See, e.g., Fonar Corp. v. General Electric Co., 107 F.3d 1543, 1550 (Fed.Cir.1997) (“Determining whether a patent claim has been infringed requires a two-step analysis: First, the claim must be properly construed to determine its scope and meaning. Second, the claim as properly construed must be compared to the accused device.... ”). Claim construction is a question of law for the court. See, e.g., Cybor Corp. v. FAS Techs., Inc., 138 F.3d 1448, 1454 (Fed.Cir.1998) (en banc).

I. BACKGROUND

The two Bristol patents relate to vehicle-mounted devices for spreading ice- and snow-melting material on roadway surfaces. The devices provide for an integrated delivery of granular material, such as salt or sand, and liquid melting agents, such as calcium or magnesium chloride solutions. Neither the basic idea of using vehicles to dispense granular material nor the more specific synchronized delivery of granular material and liquid melting agents was new at the time of Bristol’s inventions. See U.S. Patent No. 5,096,125 [Docket No. 124-6] (“125 Patent”) col. 1 l. 23-col. 2 l. 24 (describing spreader vehicles and devices in existence at the time of the patent, known as “prior art”). Rather, the novelty in Bristol’s devices lies in how they allow for the automatic reduction of the amount of granular material dispensed upon activation of the liquid material system and how they permit variable, dynamic control over the ratio of granular to liquid material. See id. col. 2 l. 28-col. 3 l. 27 (describing the purpose of the invention). Because less granular material (often referred to as simply “granular” herein) is needed to accomplish snow and ice control when combined with a liquid melting agent, the automatic reduction function allegedly creates efficiencies by avoiding excess use of the granular. See 2d Am. Compl. ¶ 18. And by permitting dynamic control of the ratios, the operator of the vehicle can select the correct “mix” of granular and liquid depending on weather and road surface conditions. See '125 Patent col. 3 ll.18-22.

Bristol initially applied for what became the '125 Patent in October 1990. See '125 Patent Prosecution History, Markman Hearing Ex. 13 (“'125 Patent File”). In addition to describing the background of the invention, summarizing the invention, and then giving a detailed description of the invention, Bristol included 39 specific claims. See id., Application at 1-36. These claims are required to “define particularly and distinctly the subject matter that the inventor regards as his or her invention”; they “set the metes and bounds of the patent owner’s exclusive rights.” Herbert F. Schwartz & Robert J. Goldman, Patent Law and Practice 16 (6th ed.2008). Most of Bristol’s original claims were objected to or rejected by the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office. See '125 Patent File, Feb. 22, 1991 Examiner’s Action. In response, Bristol rewrote many of the claims in “means-plus-function” form pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 112 ¶ 6. See id., Amendment at 3-5. As an alternative to drafting the claims to identify structures, i.e., specific components of a patented device, the patent laws permit certain claims to be “expressed as a means ... for performing a specified function without the recital of structure.” 35 U.S.C. § 112 ¶ 6. So, for example, Bristol’s original claim of a component used to set the rate of liquid material delivered, i.e., a “flow control valve,” see '125 Patent File, Application at 23, was redrafted as a more general means for performing that function, i.e., “means for selectively setting the liquid feed rate,” see id., Amendment at 4. In addition to the rewritten claims, three new claims were added to the application. See id., Amendment at 11-14. The revised application was accepted, see id., Notice of Allowability, and the '125 Patent was issued on March 17, 1992.

Four claims of the '125 Patent are at issue in this lawsuit — claim 1, which was part of the original application and was rewritten in means-plus-function form, and claims 15, 16, and 17, the three newly added claims. See 2d Am. Compl. ¶ 23.

Claim 1 describes the following:

In a synchronized granular and liquid spreader device mountable on a vehicle including a hydraulic system and comprising

a storage hopper for containing granular material,

a granular delivery system mounted on said vehicle for distributing granular material from said hopper, said hopper depositing said granular material onto conveyor means driven by said hydraulic system, said conveyor means moving the granular material to a delivery position,

delivery means at said delivery position for receiving and distributing said granular material;

a liquid storage tank,

a liquid delivery system interconnected to said granular delivery system for supplying liquid material,

means for selectively actuating said liquid delivery system for adding the liquid to the granular material generally at the delivery position; and

control means for controlling the synchronous feed rate of the granular and liquid materials, the improvements in said control means comprising

means for selectively setting the liquid feed rate within a range of feed rates,

means for selectively setting the granular delivery system feed rate over a selected range of feed rates of granular material;

means for maintaining a predetermined ratio of the feed rate of liquid material to the feed rate of granular material and

means operative in response to actuation of said liquid delivery system for reducing by a variably selected percentage the quantity of granular material delivered by said granular material delivery system while maintaining said predetermined ratio of the feed rates of delivery of liquid material and granular material.

'125 Patent col. 101. 45-col. 111. 6.

Claim 15 describes:

In an apparatus for the synchronized spreading of granular and liquid materials onto a surface and comprising

a granular material delivery system including

a hopper for containing granular material,

a spreader for distributing the granular material onto a surface,

a conveyor for conveying the granular material from said hopper to said granular material spreader,

a liquid material delivery system including

a tank for containing liquid material, a spreader for distributing the liquid material onto said surface,

a pump for pumping liquid material from said tank to said liquid material spreader,

first means for driving said conveyor, second means for driving said pump, and means for controlling said first means and said second means, the improvement in said controlling means comprising

means for controlling said first means and thereby the quantity per surface area of granular material to be applied to the surface,

means for controlling said second means and thereby the amount of liquid per surface area applied to the surface as a function of the amount of granular material being applied to the surface and a selected ratio of liquid material to granular material, and

means for variably controlling said first means in response to the activation of said second means, for reducing the quantity of granular material applied to the surface by a selected percentage of the material quantity applied prior to the activation of said second means.

Id. col. 13 11.1-27.

Claim 16 describes:

In an apparatus for the synchronized spreading of granular and liquid materials onto a surface and comprising

a granular material delivery system including

a hopper for containing granular material,

a spreader for distributing the granular material onto a surface,

a conveyor for conveying the granular material from said hopper to said granular material spreader,

a liquid material delivery system including

a tank for containing liquid material,

a spreader for distributing the liquid material onto said surface,

a pump for pumping liquid material from said tank to said liquid material spreader,

a first motor for driving said conveyor,

a second motor for driving said pump, and

means for controlling said first and second motors, the improvement in said controlling means comprising

means for controlling said first motor as a function of a predetermined amount of granular material to be applied to the surface,

means for adjustably controlling said second motor as a function of the amount of granular material to be applied to the surface and a selected ratio of liquid material to granular material, and

means for variably controlling said first motor in response to the activation of said second motor for reducing the quantity of granular material applied to the surface by a selected percentage of the material quantity applied prior to the activation of said second motor.

Id. col. 13 l. 28-col. 14 l.11.

And claim 17 describes:

In an apparatus for the synchronized spreading of granular and liquid materials onto a surface and comprising

a granular material delivery system including

a hopper for containing granular material,

a spreader for distributing the granular material onto a surface,

a conveyor for conveying the granular material from said hopper to said granular material spreader,

a liquid material delivery system including

a tank for containing liquid material,

a spreader for distributing the liquid material onto said surface,

a pump for pumping liquid material from said tank to said liquid material spreader,

a first fluid pressure motor for driving said conveyor,

a second fluid pressure motor for driving said pump,

a pressure fluid pump for delivering pressure fluid to said first and second fluid pressure motors, and

means for controlling the flow of pressure fluid to said first and second fluid pressure motors, the improvement in said controlling means comprising

means for proportioning the flow of pressure fluid to said first and second fluid pressure motors as a function of a selected amount of granular material to be applied to the surface and a selected ratio of granular material to liquid material to be applied to the surface, and means for variably controlling said first fluid pressure motor in response to the activation of said second fluid pressure motor for reducing the quantity of granular material applied to the surface by a selected percentage of the material quantity applied prior to the activation of said second fluid pressure motor.

Id. col. 14 ll.12 — 41.

Shortly before the '125 Patent issued, Bristol filed a “continuation-in-part” or “CIP” application that eventually became patent number 5,186,396 (“'396 Patent”). This application contained the same basic material as the '125 Patent, along with certain new claims. See, e.g., PowerOasis, Inc. v. T-Mobile USA, Inc., 522 F.3d 1299, 1304 n. 3 (Fed.Cir.2008) (noting that a CIP application contains “a portion or all of the disclosure of an earlier application together with added matter not present in that earlier application”). The new material involved the use of computers to accomplish the variable reduction function described in the '125 Patent. See '396 Patent [Docket No. 124-8] Figs. 11—12c; see also id. col. 1 l. 58-col. 2 l. 61, col. 9 l. 63-col. 11 l. 11. Only claim 3 of the '396 Patent is involved in the current litigation. See 2d Am. Compl. ¶ 23. That claim describes the following:

A spreader for granular and liquid materials comprising

a vehicle including

a hydraulic system,

a storage hopper mounted on said vehicle for containing granular material,

a ground speed computer including

means for sensing vehicle speed and generating a vehicle speed signal,

a granular material delivery apparatus including

a conveyor controlled by said ground speed computer and driven by said hydraulic system for moving the granular material from the hopper to a delivery position and

means at said delivery position for receiving and distributing said granular material onto a roadway surface,

said ground speed computer including

means for controlling said granular material delivery apparatus,

means for sensing conveyor speed and generating a conveyor speed signal,

a liquid material storage tank mounted on said vehicle, and a liquid material delivery apparatus including

a conduit for supplying liquid material from said tank to a delivery position and

means at said delivery position for distributing said liquid material wherein the improvement comprises

a material computer for controlling the feed rates, [sic] of the granular and liquid materials,

said material computer including mean [sic] for receiving said vehicle speed signal and generating a first signal as a function of said sensed vehicle speed, said material computer including means for receiving said conveyor speed signal and generating a second signal as a function of said sensed conveyor speed, said material computer including means for directing said first signal to said ground speed computer for controlling the delivery of said granular material, said material computer including means for directing said second signal to said liquid material delivery, [sic] apparatus for controlling the delivery of liquid material thereby,

said material computer including means for selectively setting the liquid material feed rate within a selected range of feed rates,

said material computer including means for selectively setting the granular material feed rate within a selected range of feed rates,

said material computer including means for maintaining a predetermined ratio of said feed rate of liquid material to said feed rate of granular material, and

said material computer including means responsive to actuation of said liquid material delivery apparatus for reducing by a variably selected percentage the quantity of granular material delivered by said granular material delivery apparatus while maintaining said predetermined ratio of the feed rates of delivery of liquid and granular materials.

'396 Patent col. 12 l. 43-col. 14 l. 7.

Bristol filed its original complaint on January 4, 2006. Compl. [Docket No. 1]. Both this complaint and the first amended complaint, filed several weeks later, asserted infringement of the '396 Patent only. See id. ¶ 14; see also Am. Compl. [Docket No. 24] ¶ 14. However, in the operative second amended complaint, filed in June 2006, Bristol alleged infringement of both patents. See 2d Am. Compl. ¶ 12. The patent claim construction issues were briefed and a Markman hearing was held in the summer of 2007. See Joint Claim Construction Statement [Docket No. 107]; Plaintiffs Claim Construction Brief [Docket No. 118] (“Bristol Br.”); Defendants’ Claim Interpretation Brief [Docket No. 124] (“Bosch Br.”); Plaintiff Bristol Company, LP’s Brief In Reply to Defendant Bosch’s Response on Claim Construction [Docket No. 135] (“Bristol Reply”); Mark-man Hearing Transcript of Proceedings [Docket No. 141] (“Markman Trans.”). Following several reassignments and recusals, this case was assigned to me with the claim construction issues still outstanding and all other matters, such as dispositive motions and trial setting, stayed pending the outcome of that construction. I now take up the construction of the disputed terms in the relevant claims, relying on the briefs, exhibits, and testimony of the parties and their experts as set forth during the Markman hearing.

II. LEGAL STANDARDS FOR PATENT CLAIM CONSTRUCTION

In construing patent claims, courts are guided by the precedent of the Federal Circuit. See SunTiger, Inc. v. Scientific Research Funding Group, 189 F.3d 1327, 1333 (Fed.Cir.1999). As that court has explained, “there is no magic formula or catechism for conducting claim construction.” Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1324 (Fed.Cir.2005) (en banc). Even so, the Phillips decision outlined several key sources and doctrines that ought to be consulted and applied, all the while making clear that “[t]he sequence of steps used by the judge in consulting various sources is not important; what matters is for the court to attach the appropriate weight to be assigned to those sources in light of the statutes and policies that inform patent law.” Id.

Courts begin with the “bedrock principle” that “ ‘the claims of the patent defíne the invention to which the patentee is entitled the right to exclude.’ ” Id. at 1312 (quoting Innova/Pure Water, Inc. v. Safari Water Filtration Systems, Inc., 381 F.3d 1111, 1115 (Fed.Cir.2004)). The words of the claims “ ‘are generally given their ordinary and customary meaning,’ ” id. (quoting Vitronics Corp. v. Conceptronic, Inc., 90 F.3d 1576, 1582 (Fed.Cir.1996)), which is “the meaning that the term would have to a person of ordinary skill in the art in question at the time of the invention,” id. at 1313. Sometimes, when the claim language “involves little more than the application of the widely accepted meaning of commonly understood words,” construction is relatively straightforward and “the ordinary meaning ... may be readily apparent even to lay judges.” Id. at 1314. However, when the claim terms have a particular meaning in the field, courts “look[] to ‘those sources available to the public that show what a person of skill in the art would have understood disputed claim language to mean.’ ” Id. (quoting Innova, 381 F.3d at 1116). These sources include “ ‘the words of the claims themselves, the remainder of the specification, the prosecution history, and extrinsic evidence concerning relevant scientific principles, the meaning of technical terms, and the state of the art.’ ” Id.

Importantly, claim terms are not read in a vacuum. Id. at 1313. The context in which a term is used, both in the asserted claim as well as in other claims of the patent, can be valuable and instructive. Id. at 1314. In addition, the patent specification — the text and figures of the patent that precede the claims — “ ‘is always highly relevant to the claim construction analysis. Usually, it is dispositive; it is the single best guide to the meaning of a disputed term.’ ” Id. at 1315 (quoting Vitronics, 90 F.3d at 1582). Courts also consider the patent’s prosecution history— the official record of the patent application and subsequent process before the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office. Id. at 1317. That history “provides evidence of how the PTO and the inventor understood the patent.” Id. However, “because the prosecution history represents an ongoing negotiation between the PTO and the applicant, ... it often lacks the clarity of the specification and thus is less useful for claim construction purposes.” Id.

Courts may consult extrinsic evidence such as “expert and inventor testimony, dictionaries, and learned treatises.” Id. However, this evidence is “ ‘less significant than the intrinsic record,’ ” i.e., the specification and prosecution history, id. (quoting C.R. Bard, Inc. v. U.S. Surgical Corp., 388 F.3d 858, 862 (Fed.Cir.2004)), and courts must be wary not to use extrinsic evidence to override the meaning of the claim terms demonstrated by the intrinsic evidence. Id. at 1318-19. That is, “extrinsic evidence may be useful to the court, but it is unlikely to result in a reliable interpretation of patent claim scope unless considered in the context of the intrinsic evidence.” Id. at 1319.

In sum, a court’s basic role is to construe the claim terms as they would be viewed by “the ordinary artisan after reading the entire patent.” Id. at 1321. This is crucial in order to respect the public notice function of patents:

The patent system is based on the proposition that claims cover only the invented subject matter. As the Supreme Court has stated, “[i]t seems to us that nothing can be more just and fair, both to the patentee and the public, than that the former should understand, and correctly describe, just what he has invented, and for what he claims a patent.”

Id. at 1321 (quoting Merrill v. Yeomans, 94 U.S. 568, 573-74, 24 L.Ed. 235 (1876)).

Where claims are written as “means-plus-function” limitations, as are many claims here, additional nuance applies to their construction. As noted above, § 112 ¶ 6 permits a patentee to claim a means to accomplish a function, rather than a specific structure, when describing an invention. Construction of a means-plus-function claim is a two-step process. First, the court identifies the function described in the claim language, applying ordinary principles of claim construction to do so. See, e.g., Cardiac Pacemakers, Inc. v. St. Jude Medical, Inc., 296 F.3d 1106, 1113-14 (Fed.Cir.2002). Next, the court looks to the specification to determine what, if any, structure is disclosed to perform that claimed function. See, e.g., id. A patentee does not receive protection over an indefinite number of structures or devices that could perform the claimed function. Instead,

in return for generic claiming ability, the applicant must indicate in the specification what structure constitutes the means. “If the specification is not clear as to the structure that the patentee intends to correspond to the claimed function, then the patentee has not paid the price but is rather attempting to claim in functional terms unbounded by any reference to structure in the specification.”

Biomedino, LLC v. Waters Technologies Corp., 490 F.3d 946, 948 (Fed.Cir.2007) (quoting Med. Instrumentation & Diagnostics Corp. v. Elekta AB, 344 F.3d 1205, 1211 (Fed.Cir.2003)). This is not an onerous burden. See, e.g., Atmel Corp. v. Information Storage Devices, Inc., 198 F.3d 1374, 1382 (Fed.Cir.1999) (“All one needs to do in order to obtain the benefit of that claiming device is to recite some structure corresponding to the means in the specification, as the statute states, so that one can readily ascertain what the claim means.... ”). But neither does this requirement permit generic references or unfocused language. In order to properly indicate that structure corresponds to function, the specification or prosecution history must “clearly link[ ] or associate! ] that structure to the function recited in the claim.” Default Proof Credit Card Sys., Inc. v. Home Depot U.S.A., Inc., 412 F.3d 1291, 1298 (Fed.Cir.2005). “This duty to link or associate structure to function is the quid pro quo for the convenience of employing § 112 ¶ 6.” Id.

As with all patents, a court must read the specification from the perspective of one skilled in the art. However, the relevant inquiry is not whether such a person could implement a structure by reading the specification, but rather “whether one of skill in the art would understand the specification itself to disclose the structure.” Elekta, 344 F.3d at 1212 (emphasis added); see also Atmel, 198 F.3d at 1380 (noting that “the understanding of one skilled in the art in no way relieves the patentee of adequately disclosing sufficient structure in the specification”). In other words, while the patent covers all disclosed structures, “including any alternative structures identified,” Ser rano v. Telular Corp., 111 F.3d 1578, 1583 (Fed.Cir.1997), the key is that the structures are actually “disclosed” and “identified.” A patentee may not simply state that structures may be used without specifically describing them. See, e.g., Fonar, 107 F.3d at 1551-52 (“The '966 specification discloses use of a generic gradient wave form. Although it states that other wave forms may be used, it fails to specifically identify those wave forms. Thus, under section 112, ¶ 6, claim 12 is limited to use of a generic gradient wave form and its equivalents.”).

In this way, the rules of construction serve to narrow an otherwise unbounded functional claim. See, e.g., Multiform Desiccants, Inc. v. Medzam, Ltd., 133 F.3d 1473, 1479 (Fed.Cir.1998) (“[Cjlaims written in the means-for form of § 112 ¶ 6 do not, by virtue of this form, acquire a scope as to the function beyond that which is supported in the specification, or as to the structure beyond equivalents of that shown in the specification.”); Jonsson v. Stanley Works, 903 F.2d 812, 819 (Fed.Cir.1990) (“Paragraph 6 ‘operates to cut back on the type of means which could literally satisfy the claim language.’ ” (quoting Johnston v. IVAC Corp., 885 F.2d 1574, 1580 (Fed.Cir.1989))) (emphasis in original). “Unlike the ordinary situation in which claims may not be limited by functions or elements disclosed in the specification, but not included in the claims themselves, in writing a claim in means-plus-function form, a party is limited to the corresponding structure disclosed in the specification and its equivalents.” Kahn v. General Motors Corp., 135 F.3d 1472, 1476 (Fed.Cir.1998). These principles exist to ensure that the public clearly understands what the patent covers. As the Federal Circuit has aptly explained,

[t]he public should not be required to guess as to the structure for which the patentee enjoys the right to exclude. The public instead is entitled to know precisely what kind of structure the patentee has selected for the claimed functions, when claims are written according to section 112, paragraph 6.... Such rules are intended to produce certainty in result. Precision in claiming is not an unreasonable price to pay to gain the benefits of claiming in functional terms under section 112, paragraph 6.

Elekta, 344 F.3d at 1219-20.

One final point before turning to the claims at issue. Both parties invoke “equivalents” in their claim construction arguments, sparring over whether Bosch’s products are equivalent to structures in Bristol’s patents. In the context of means-plus-function claims, there are two situations in which equivalence may be an issue. First, by the terms of § 112 ¶ 6 itself, a product literally infringes a patent where it is equivalent to the disclosed structure. See, e.g., WMS Gaming Inc. v. Int’l Game Technology, 184 F.3d 1339, 1347 (Fed.Cir.1999). Moreover, under the doctnne of equivalents, a claim may be infringed “if the differences between the claim and the accused device are insubstantial.” Id. at 1352. However, neither of these equivalence issues is relevant at this stage of the litigation. Unlike claim construction, which is a question of law for the Court, equivalence is a question of fact best reserved for summary judgment or trial. See, e.g., Wavetronix LLC v. EIS Electronic Integrated Systems, 573 F.3d 1343, 1360 (Fed.Cir.2009) (“As with literal infringement, infringement by equivalents is a question of fact.”). Determining infringement at the construction stage, which necessarily requires a comparison with the allegedly infringing product, would run afoul of the Federal Circuit’s repeated caution that “ ‘claims may not be construed by reference to the accused device.’ ” Wilson Sporting Goods Co. v. Hillerich & Bradsby Co., 442 F.3d 1322, 1330-31 (Fed.Cir.2006) (quoting NeoMagic Corp. v. Trident Microsystems, Inc., 287 F.3d 1062, 1074 (Fed.Cir.2002)). In short, issues of equivalence are not before me at this time.

III. ANALYSIS

Bristol asserts that Bosch’s products infringe four claims of the '125 Patent and one claim of the '396 Patent. I first address the claims of the '125 Patent.

A. Claim 1 of the '125 Patent

The parties’ dispute over claim 1 focuses on two key issues: what the patent means when it describes the “connection” between the granular and liquid material systems, and what structures are identified as part of the “control means” for controlling those two systems.

1. Connection between liquid and granular systems

Claim 1 describes, among other things, “a liquid delivery system interconnected to [the] granular delivery system for supplying liquid material.” '125 Patent col. 10 ll. 55-57. Bristol contends that the term “interconnected” includes a liquid delivery system that is connected “electronically, hydraulically, or mechanically” to the granular system. Bosch claims the connection must be hydraulic.

In support of Bristol’s argued construction, it notes that the summary section of the patent expressly uses this “electronic, hydraulic, or mechanical” language. Bristol Br. at 16-17; see also '125 Patent col. 2 ll. 60-62 (“The liquid delivery system is mechanically, electronically or hydraulically connected to the granular delivery system.”). Bristol also points out that the preferred embodiments include both mechanical and hydraulic connections, making-clear that the connection is not limited to hydraulics. Bristol Br. at 17; see also '125 Patent col. 4 ll. 58-65 (“The liquid pump 40 of the liquid delivery system 25 is mechanically connected through a gear box 46 to a shaft of the conveyor 20 in a mechanical embodiment. (FIG. 3). In the hydraulic embodiments of FIGS. 5 through 10, the pump 40 is mechanically connected to the liquid system motor 38, which is in fluid communication with the hydraulic system 28 of the granular delivery system 23.”). Thus, Bristol contends, “interconnected” should be read to include all three connection types.

Bosch, on the other hand, dismisses what it calls a “passing statement” to electronic, hydraulic, and mechanical connection and argues that the embodiments and descriptions in the patent for performing the functions of reducing the feed rate of the granular system or selecting a ratio of liquid to granular material are all hydraulic. Bosch Br. at 11-12. Bosch relies on the following language in the patent specification:

In all of the embodiments discussed, reduction of the feed rate of the granular delivery system 23 resulted from diversion of hydraulic fluid to the liquid delivery system 25. It is also contemplated in the embodiment shown in FIG. 10 of the present invention to reduce the feed rate of the granular delivery system 23 by diverting hydraulic fluid from the conveyor motor 26 in a proportional amount and returning the hydraulic fluid to the reservoir 34 rather than to the liquid delivery system 25.

'125 Patent col. 9 11. 42-50.

I adopt Bristol’s construction. In determining the meaning of a claim term, I read the term “in the context of the entire patent, including the specification.” Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1313. The specification is “the single best guide to the meaning of a disputed term.” Id. at 1315 (quotations and citation omitted); see also Markman v. Westview Instruments, Inc., 52 F.3d 967, 979 (Fed.Cir.1995) (“The specification contains a written description of the invention that must enable one of ordinary skill in the art to make and use the invention. For claim construction purposes, the description may act as a sort of dictionary, which explains the invention and may define terms used in the claims”). Here, the specification could not be clearer: “The liquid delivery system is mechanically, electronically or hydraulically connected to the granular delivery system.” '125 Patent col. 2 ll. 60-62.

Bosch’s attempt to look to the specific embodiments to override this clear language is improper. As an initial matter, it is not clear that the portion of the specification relied on by Bosch deals with the general connection between the systems. Rather, it appears to bear on the manner in which the specific reduction infeed rate is accomplished. But even assuming the language deals with the connection issue, restricting the meaning of a claim term to that described in an embodiment constitutes what the Federal Circuit has called “one of the cardinal sins of patent law— reading a limitation from the written description into the claims.” SciMed Life Systems, Inc. v. Advanced Cardiovascular Systems, Inc., 242 F.3d 1337, 1340 (Fed.Cir.2001); see also SuperGuide Corp. v. DirecTV Enterprises, Inc., 358 F.3d 870, 875 (Fed.Cir.2004) (“Though understanding the claim language may be aided by the explanations contained in the written description, it is important not to import into a claim limitations that are not a part of the claim. For example, a particular embodiment appearing in the written description may not be read into a claim when the claim language is broader than the embodiment.”). This claim element is not written in means-plus-function format, requiring some link between the claim term and a specific structure. Rather, the question is simply what the word “interconnected” means in the context of the entire patent. As the specification provides a clear definition, that is the definition I must apply.

2. Control means

Claim 1 also describes a

control means for controlling the synchronous feed rate of the granular and liquid materials, the improvements in said control means comprising

[ (1) ] means for selectively setting the liquid feed rate within a range of feed rates,

[ (2) ] means for selectively setting the granular delivery system feed rate over a selected range of feed rates of granular material;

[ (3) ] means for maintaining a predetermined ratio of the feed rate of liquid material to the feed rate of granular material and

[ (4) ] means operative in response to actuation of said liquid delivery system for reducing by a variably selected percentage the quantity of granular material delivered by said granular material delivery system while maintaining said predetermined ratio of the feed rates of delivery of liquid material and granular material.

'125 Patent col. 10 l. 60-col. 11 l. 6. The parties dispute the meaning of each of the four “means” clauses constituting the control means. However, before turning to the construction of these clauses, I address a threshold issue. As discussed in detail below, many of the structures in the patent consist of specific valves through which fluid or liquid pass. The parties disagree about precisely what types of valves are described in the patent.

a. Valve definition

Bosch argues that the patent discloses only three types of valves: a “direction control valve” that sends all of its flow in one direction or another; a “flow control valve” that divides the flow proportionally between two different destinations, and a “liquid flow control valve” that regulates the flow of liquid material to the liquid nozzles. Bosch Br. at 14-15. Bristol does not contest Bosch’s description of the liquid flow control valve. Compare Bosch Claim Construction Chart [Docket 124-3] (“Bosch Claim Chart”) at 2 (“[A] ‘Liquid Flow Control Valve’ is a valve which limits the flow of the liquid material to the liquid nozzles. It is not a hydraulic valve.”); with Bristol Reply at 42 (“It should be noted that there are also liquid flow control valves. This is not a hydraulic fluid valve, but rather a valve which controls the amount of flow of the calcium chloride or magnesium chloride being applied to the granular material.”). However, Bristol contends that Bosch’s definition of the other two valves is overly limited. Bristol asserts that “direction” or “directional” valves and “variable flow” valves are general terms familiar to persons of ordinary skill in the art and that they include more than just the two-position direction valve or the floiv divider flow control valve referenced by Bosch. Bristol Reply at 37-41.

Bristol is correct that, in the hydraulics literature, direction valves and flow control valves encompass a broad array of devices. For example, direction valves are described as “managing] the flow path of the fluid in the system. They function to stop, start, check, divert, shuttle, divide proportionally, and by other means direct the flow of oil in one, two, three, four, or more flow paths or ways.” Sullivan, J., Fluid Power: Theory and Applications 230 (4th ed.1998); see also id. (noting that “[o]neway, two-way, three-way, and four-way valves are common”). As Bosch’s own expert, Dr. Michael Sidman, admits, this definition encompasses more than the two-position valve described by Bosch. See Bristol Reply, Ex. E (noting that “[o]utside of the restrictive meaning used in the '125 patent, ‘Directional control valves’ ” have the broader meaning described in the Sullivan text). Similarly, Bristol points to industry literature that shows “flow divider” valves to be just one of many types of flow control valves. Bristol Reply at 39-40 (citing Penton Publishing Company’s website, at http://www.hydraulicspneumatics. com). The question is whether these general definitions apply in this case.

Bristol relies on the uncontroversial principle that “[generally speaking, [courts] indulge a ‘heavy presumption’ that a claim term carries its ordinary and customary meaning.” CCS Fitness, Inc. v. Brunswick Corp., 288 F.3d 1359, 1366 (Fed.Cir.2002). However, “direction” and “flow control” are not claim terms; rather, they are used in the specification to describe structures that correlate to the “means-plus-function” limitations at issue. Bristol points to no case suggesting that the “ordinary meaning” canon applies to evaluating structures. Indeed, the opposite is normally true. In the face of a means-plus-function limitation, structures must be clearly disclosed, a requirement “intended to produce certainty in result.” Elekta, 344 F.3d at 1220; see also id. (noting that means-plus-function patents require “[precision in claiming”).

Moreover, even if the “ordinary meaning” canon applied to interpretation of terms used in the specification, courts must “adopt a definition that is different from the ordinary meaning when ‘the patentee acted as his own lexicographer and clearly set forth a definition of the disputed claim term in either the specification or prosecution history.’ ” Edward Lifesciences LLC v. Cook Inc., 582 F.3d 1322, 1329 (Fed.Cir.2009) (quoting CCS Fitness, 288 F.3d at 1366). Thus, a patentee’s repeated and exclusive use of a term to mean only one thing will limit that term accordingly. See id. (noting that because the only devices described in the specification were “intraluminal” graft devices, the claim term “graft” meant “intraluminal graft”).

In light of these principles, I agree with Bosch that the direction and flow control valves described in the patent have specific, limited meanings. Direction control valves are repeatedly described as functioning as “on-off’ switches, directing all flow to either one output or another:

[U]sing a hydraulic direction control valve 60, the granular material delivery system 2 selectively diverts all of the hydraulic flow away from the hydraulic system 28 to the liquid system motor 38 of the liquid delivery system 25.... In the first setting of the direction control valve 60, the liquid delivery system 25 is activated or on. In the second setting of the valve 60, only the operation of the separate conveyor motor 26 is selected. In that case, the liquid delivery system 25 is off.

'125 Patent col. 6 ll. 33-46.

If the liquid delivery system 25 is on, i.e., motor 38 is activated by setting the direction control valve 60, then the pump 40 operates as previously described.... A liquid level indicator 62 can be mounted in the liquid tank 16 selecting the first setting, to turn off the liquid delivery system 25 at the direction control valve 60....

Id. col. 6 ll. 55-63.

In the embodiment shown in FIG. 7 the hydraulic direction control valve 50 is utilized in a first setting to solely direct fluid to the separate conveyor motor 26 or, through the hydraulic flow control valve 48, in a second setting directs fluid to the liquid system motor 38 and the conveyor motor 26. As has been discussed in other embodiments, if the separate conveyor motor 26 is selected by the direction control valve 50, the liquid delivery system 25 is shut off.

Id. col. 6 l. 64-col. 7 l. 4.

The level indicator 62 operates the direction control valve 50 to enable or disable the liquid delivery system 25, depending upon the level of liquid 17 in the tank 16.

Id. col. 7 ll. 25-28.

As before, depending on the position of the direction flow control valve 72, the liquid delivery system 25 is either on or off. If the flow control valve 72 is set to turn the liquid delivery system 25 off, then all the hydraulic fluid is directed toward the conveyor motor 26 of the granular delivery system 23. If the direction flow control valve 72 is on, then the hydraulic fluid is directed through the first variable flow control valve 70....

Id. col. 8 ll. 4-11.

The direction control valve 80 can be electronically connected as described previously to activate or deactivate the liquid delivery system 25. If the direction control valve 80 is set to direct fluid to the conveyor motor 26 only, no reduction in hydraulic flow, and, therefore, no reduction in granular material feed rate occurs nor is liquid added.

Id. col. 9 l. 65-col. 10 l. 3.

Similarly, hydraulic flow control valves are consistently described as valves that divide flow between two outputs, sending X% of their flow to one output and 100-X% to another:

If the flow control valve 48 is selected by the direction control valve 50, a selected constant percentage of the hydraulic fluid is available to operate the liquid system motor 38, with the balance operating the separate conveyor motor 26.

Id. col. 7 ll. 4-8.

In the embodiment shown in FIG. 8, a desired percentage of hydraulic fluid is diverted at the variable flow control valve 48 from hydraulic system 28 to the liquid delivery system 25.

Id. col. 7 ll. 29-32.

If the direction flow control valve 72 is on, then the hydraulic fluid is directed through the first variable flow control valve 70, which sets the percentage of reduction as has been discussed with respect to FIGS. 7 and 8. A percentage of hydraulic fluid is diverted to the liquid delivery system 25, and the remainder is used to drive the granular delivery system 23. Hydraulic fluid then passes through the second variable flow control valve 74.... Depending on the setting of the second variable flow control valve 74, the liquid delivery system 25 operates at a full feed rate for the liquid 17 or at a lesser feed rate.... As in the alter [sic] embodiments, the liquid feed rate is constant within a range. As seen in FIG. 9, any excess hydraulic fluid is returned to the hydraulic system 28 and eventually to the reservoir 34.

Id. col. 8 ll. 9-28.

It is also contemplated in the embodiment shown in FIG. 10 of the present invention to reduce the feed rate of the granular delivery system 23 by diverting hydraulic fluid from the conveyor motor 26 in a proportional amount and returning the hydraulic fluid to the reservoir 34 rather than to the liquid delivery system 25. Such a diversion is accomplished by a variable flow control valve 82 and a direction control valve 80 similar to valves 48 and 50 described in reference to the embodiment shown in FIG. 7. The variable flow control valve 82 is placed in line so as to be upstream from the conveyor motor 26. A proportional amount of hydraulic fluid is thus directed to the liquid and conveyor motors 38 and 26 and the remaining and proportional amount of hydraulic fluid in the hydraulic system 28 is returned to the reservoir 3 by the variable flow control valve 82.

To achieve the desired reduction of the granular material feed rate, the variable flow control valve 82 returns the remaining proportional amount of the hydraulic fluid to the reservoir 34.

Id. col. 9 ll. 45-65.

In short, the '125 Patent describes “direction” (or “directional”) and “flow control” valves in specific and distinct ways. These descriptions must control over a broad interpretation of what the terms direction and flow control valve could mean. Cf. Elekta, 344 F.3d at 1220 (Fed.Cir.2003) (“The public ... is entitled to know precisely what kind of structure the patentee has selected for the claimed functions, when claims are written according to section 112, paragraph 6.”). I therefore adopt Bosch’s construction; direction control valves, as that term is used in the patent, send all of the flow in one direction or another, and flow control valves divide the flow between two different destinations.

Bristol also contends that direction and flow control valves can be combined into one valve serving both functions. Bristol Reply at 42. As a matter of basic engineering, that may be true. However, Bristol does not cite, nor have I found, any language in the patent that discloses such a combined structure. Thus, for purposes of construing what the patent terms mean — which is my task at this stage of the proceeding — I cannot include a single valve that controls both direction and flow.

Further, both parties occasionally dispute whether certain valves are equivalent to the direction and flow control valves described in the '125 Patent. See, e.g., Bosch Br. at 18 (contending that a valve it uses, the MP-18 valve, is not an equivalent structure to either a direction control valve or a variable control valve); Bristol Reply at 42 (contending that the MP-18 valve is “[a]t the least” an equivalent to the valves described). But as discussed above, the factual question of equivalents is a separate inquiry from the legal question of claim construction, and is not appropriate to consider at this time. I express no opinion as to whether other “directional” or “flow control” valves referenced in the industry literature, a combined direction and flow valve, the MP-18 valve, or any other valve or structure is equivalent to the specific valves described in the '125 Patent.

In addition to disputing the type of valves used, Bristol contends that the manner of control of those valves^ — and specifically electronic control — is disclosed in the patent. Bristol Br. at 5, 13; see also Bristol Reply Br. at 42-44. However, unlike the repeated and consistent description of the type of valve (direction and flow control), there is no general description of how those valves are actuated or controlled. Bristol’s references to electronic valve control in the patent all deal with specific valves performing specific functions. See Bristol Reply at 43 (referencing col. 9 ll. 34-38 (“[T]he liquid feed rate could be measured electronically, and a signal proportional to the feed rate would proportionately open and close a valve (not shown) in the hydraulic system 28.”); col. 9 ll. 65-68 (“The direction control valve 80 can be electronically connected as described previously to activate or deactivate the liquid delivery system 25.”)). Bristol’s other references to electronics in the patent touch on other issues, not valve control. See Bristol Reply at 43-44 (referencing col. 2 ll. 60-62 (“The liquid delivery system is mechanically, electronically or hydraulically connected to the granular delivery system.”); col. 4 ll. 26-29 (“If the hydraulic system 28 is turned off at the switch 33, hydraulic fluid is returned to a fluid reservoir 34, through by-pass line 30.”); col. 9 ll. 31-34 (“Those of ordinary skill in the art will appreciate that reduction, or proportional change, of the feed rate of the granular delivery system 23 may result from other mechanical and electronic means.”)). Basic control of the valves is not a relevant aspect of the patented devices. For that reason, I decline to construe the patent to require any type of basic valve actuation or control. Instead, I address the control of specific valves as those issues arise.

With this background in mind, I turn to the four “means” clauses of claim 1.

b. Means for selectively setting the liquid feed rate

The first clause at issue is the “[m]eans for selectively setting the liquid feed rate within a range of feed rates.” '125 Patent col. 10 ll. 62-64. The parties agree that the claimed function is the setting of the rate, from a number of available rates, at which the liquid material is to be spread. Joint Claim Construction Statement, '125 Patent Claim 1 [Docket No. 107-3] (“'125 Patent Claim 1 Chart”) at 7. The parties’ dispute centers on what structure or structures correspond with this function.

First, the specification discloses the use of an adjustable liquid flow control valve positioned in the liquid material flow path. This valve sends some portion of the liquid material to the nozzles that spread the material and the remaining portion of the liquid material back to the liquid storage tank. By adjusting this liquid flow control valve, the amount of liquid material to be spread — the feed rate — can be manipulated. See, e.g., '125 Patent col. 2 ll. 66-68 (“The liquid feed rate may be changed by a flow control valve, which returns a selected portion of the liquid to the storage tank.”); id. col. 6 ll. 22-26 (“[Adjustment of the flow control valve 42 determines how much of the liquid 17 is applied to the nozzles 21 and how much is returned to the tank 16. The flow control valve 42 therefore determines the amount of liquid 17 applied to the road 18....”). This structure is clearly associated with the function of setting the liquid material feed rate.

The specification also describes a two-stage adjustment to the liquid material feed rate, using the liquid motor and liquid pump in connection with an adjustable liquid flow control valve. This structure is illustrated in Figure 7 of the '125 Patent:

At the first stage, the speed of the liquid motor [38] and therefore the liquid pump [40] is adjusted by manipulating how much hydraulic fluid — and therefore power — is sent to the motor. This adjustment is accomplished by means of a variable flow control valve [48] that divides the hydraulie fluid between the liquid motor [38] and the conveyor motor [26], i.e., the motor that powers the granular material distribution. Changing the amount of hydraulic fluid increases or decreases the speed of the motor and pump, thereby adjusting the speed at which liquid is pumped through the liquid system. At the second stage, the amount of liquid being pumped through the system is further reduced by use of the same type of liquid flow control valve [42] discussed above. The entire process is described in the specification:

If the flow control valve 48 is selected by the direction control valve 50, a selected constant percentage of the hydraulic fluid is available to operate the liquid system motor 38, with the balance operating the separate [granular] conveyor motor 26.

.... The percent of fluid diverted to the motor 38 is set at a constant but may be changed to any of an infinite number of settings over a range by the operator, altering the feed rate of the granular delivery system 23....

As before, the liquid system motor 38 mechanically drives the pump 40, the liquid 17 is forced through the variable flow control valve 42 and the flow meter 44 to the nozzles 21.

'125 Patent col. 7 ll. 4-25. This two-stage process, using both the speed of the motor and pump and the liquid flow control valve, also clearly accomplishes the function of setting the liquid material feed rate.

Finally, the specification discloses a structure that uses two adjustable flow control valves placed in the hydraulic fluid flow path. This structure is illustrated in Figure 9:

Like the flow control valve [48] in Figure 7, the first flow control valve [70] sends some portion of the hydraulic fluid toward the conveyor motor [26] and the remaining portion of hydraulic fluid toward the liquid motor [38]. This diversion, common to many of the structures described in the patent, simply permits X% of the hydraulic fluid to be sent to the granular system and the remaining 100-X% of the hydraulic fluid to be sent to the liquid system. However, this structure uses a second diversion: before reaching its destination, the hydraulic fluid heading toward the liquid motor passes through another flow control valve [74] that diverts some additional portion of the hydraulic fluid away from the motor and back to the hydraulic reservoir [34], Thus, the 100-X% of hydraulic fluid is further reduced (by an adjustable amount), which diminishes the power to the liquid pump motor and therefore the amount of liquid being pushed through the liquid delivery system. The specification describes this structure as follows:

[i]n the embodiment shown in FIG. 9, the feed rate of the liquid delivery system 25 is controlled entirely through the hydraulic system 28. This eliminates the need for the liquid flow control valve 42. Rather, the first and second variable control values [sic] 70 and 74, as well as directional flow control valve 72, are placed in the hydraulic system 28 upstream of the liquid system motor 38. ... [Depending on the position of the direction flow control valve 72, the liquid delivery system 25 is either on or off.... If the direction flow control valve 72 is on, then the hydraulic fluid is directed through the first variable flow control valve 70, which sets [a certain] percentage of reduction.... A percentage of hydraulic fluid is diverted to the liquid delivery system 25, and the remainder is used to drive the granular delivery system 23. Hydraulic fluid then passes through the second variable flow control valve 74. At the control valve 70, the feed rate of the liquid delivery system 25 is set. Depending on the setting of the second variable flow control valve 74, the liquid delivery system 25 operates at a full feed rate for the liquid 17 or at a lesser feed rate. In this manner, the amount of hydraulic fluid supplied to the pump motor 38 controls the feed rate of the liquid 17, rather than the flow control valve 42 of the other alternative embodiments.

'125 Patent col. 7 l. 41-col. 8 l. 25.

Bosch takes issue with this purely hydraulic structure, arguing that the prosecution history of the patent limits claim 1 to structures that include liquid flow control valves. Bosch notes that the original '125 Patent application included, as a necessary element of original claim 1, a liquid flow control valve. See '125 Patent File, Application at 23 (including as part of the claim “a flow control valve for taking a selected amount of liquid from said liquid delivery system and returning said liquid to a storage tank”). Claim 2 of the original application incorporated claim 1 and added an additional “means for altering the granular delivery system feed rate directly dependent upon the feed rate of the liquid delivery system.” Id. In rejecting these claims, the PTO noted that original claim 1 was not “patentably distinct” from a similar claim in another pending patent application. '125 Patent File, Feb. 22, 1991 Examiner’s Action at 2-3. Original claim 2 was problematic because it was dependent on the rejected claim 1, but the PTO noted that claim 2 “would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim.” Id. at 3. Bristol then amended the claims, rewriting claim 1 into its present means-plus-function format. See '125 Patent File, Amendment at 3-5, 16; see also Bristol Reply at 15-16. Importantly, Bristol represented that “[c]laim 1 has been amended by incorporating the limitations of claim 2 therein.” '125 Patent File, Amendment at 16. From this history, Bosch makes the following three-step argument: (1) original claim 2 incorporated the limitations of original claim 1, which included the limitation of a liquid flow control valve; thus (2) original claim 2 required a liquid flow control valve; meaning (3) Bristol’s subsequent representation that new claim 1 incorporated old claim 2 necessarily means that new claim 1 has the limitation of a liquid flow control valve. See Bosch Br. at 45.

Bosch is correct that, under the doctrine of prosecution disclaimer, a patent’s prosecution history can narrow the meaning of claim terms. See, e.g., Southwall Technologies, Inc. v. Cardinal IG Co., 54 F.3d 1570, 1576 (Fed.Cir.1995). But a patentee’s statement during the prosecution must be sufficiently precise in order for such a limitation to attach. See, e.g., Vita-Mix Corp. v. Basic Holding, Inc., 581 F.3d 1317, 1324 (Fed.Cir.2009) (“A patentee may, through a clear and unmistakable disavowal in the prosecution history, surrender certain claim scope to which he would otherwise have an exclusive right by virtue of the claim language.”); Purdue Pharma L.P. v. Endo Pharmaceuticals Inc., 438 F.3d 1123, 1136 (Fed.Cir.2006) (“Under the doctrine of prosecution disclaimer, a patentee may limit the meaning of a claim term by making a clear and unmistakable disavowal of scope during prosecution.”). The Federal Circuit has “consistently rejected prosecution statements too vague or ambiguous to qualify as a disavowal of claim scope.” Omega Engineering, Inc. v. Raytek Corp., 334 F.3d 1314, 1325 (Fed.Cir.2003). This requirement of express disclaimer makes sense in light of the fact that “prosecution history represents an ongoing negotiation between the PTO and the applicant” and therefore “often lacks the clarity of the specification.” Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1317; see also Abbott Labs. v. Sandoz, Inc., 566 F.3d 1282, 1289 (Fed.Cir.2009) (“[O]wing in part to the inherent ambiguities of prosecution history, the doctrine of prosecution disclaimer only applies to unambiguous disavowals.”).

Bristol’s prosecution statements are too ambiguous to invoke the doctrine of prosecution disclaimer. Nowhere in the prosecution history did Bristol expressly state that new claim 1 incorporated, for all functions, a liquid flow control valve. Nor does new claim 1 actually reference such a valve. Bosch’s argument requires accepting that, when Bristol stated that original claim 1 had been amended to “incorporate] the limitations of [original] claim 2,” Bristol meant to incorporate not only the express limitations of original claim 2, i.e., a “means for altering the granular delivery system feed rate directly dependent upon the feed rate of the liquid delivery system,” but also the limitations contained in original claim 1, i.e., the liquid flow control valve, that were implicitly incorporated into original claim 2 by virtue of it being dependent on original claim 1. Whatever the merits of this proposition as a matter of logic, it is not a “clear and unambiguous disavowal” of any structure lacking a liquid flow control valve. In sum, I find that a structure using flow control valves in the hydraulic fluid lines, rather than a liquid flow control valve, is a disclosed structure clearly linked to the function of setting the liquid material feed rate.

In addition to the three structures discussed above, Bristol contends that the '125 Patent discloses a number of other valves, pumps, and combinations that perform the function at issue. Although Bristol is not entirely consistent between its claim definition chart and its claim construction brief, it appears to point to three additional structures: (1) the liquid system pump alone (Bristol Br. at 22, 24; '125 Patent Claim 1 Chart at 7); (2) the combination of a direction control valve with flow control valves (Bristol Br. at 22, 23); and (3) a valve that is both a flow and direction control valve (Bristol Br. at 22). However, none of these structures is clearly linked with the function of setting the liquid material feed rate.

While the patent does disclose the use of the liquid pump in combination with other elements, i.e., the liquid motor and an adjustable liquid flow control valve, to selectively set the liquid material feed rate, I find no reference to the use of the liquid pump alone to do so. Even the language cited by Bristol demonstrates that the liquid pump is to be used in combination with the liquid flow control valve. Bristol Br. at 24; '125 Patent Claim 1 Chart at 7 (citing '125 Patent col. 4 l. 66-col. 5 l. 1 (“The liquid pump 40 partially sets the feed rate of the liquid 17 supplied to the liquid flow control valve 42, which finalizes the amount or feed rate of the liquid 17 delivered to the nozzles 21.”) (emphasis added)).

Similarly, the patent