`
`UNITED STATES INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION
`
`Washington, D.C.
`
`
`
`
`In the Matter of
`
`CERTAIN LIQUID COOLERS FOR ELECTRONIC
`COMPONENTS IN COMPUTERS, COMPONENTS
`THEREOF, DEVICES FOR CONTROLLING SAME,
`AND PRODUCTS CONTAINING SAME
`
`
`
`ORDER NO. 10: CLAIM CONSTRUCTION ORDER
`
`
`(November 20, 2024)
`
`INV. NO. 337-TA-1394
`
`On June 10, 2024, the parties to this investigation1 proposed competing constructions for
`
`terms recited in asserted claims of U.S. Patent No. 10,509,446 (“the ’446 patent”) and U.S. Patent
`
`No. 11,061,450 (“the ’450 patent”). See EDIS Doc. ID 823434. The parties subsequently briefed
`
`their positions regarding the terms in accordance with the procedural schedule.2
`
`
`1 The complainants are Cooler Master Co., Ltd.; CMI USA, Inc.; and CMC Great USA, Inc.
`(collectively, “Cooler Master” or “Complainants”). The respondents are Shenzhen Apaltek Co.,
`Ltd., and Guangdong Apaltek Liquid Cooling Technology Co., Ltd. (together, “Apaltek”);
`Enermax Technology Corp. and Enermax USA (together, “Enermax”); and SilverStone
`Technology Co., Ltd., and SilverStone Technology Inc. (together, “SilverStone”) (collectively,
`“Respondents”).
`2 For convenience, the parties’ briefs will be referred to the by following designations:
`Title
`EDIS Doc. ID
`Designation
`Complainants’ Opening Claim Construction Brief
`824293
`COCCB
`Respondents’ Opening Claim Construction Brief
`824300
`ROCCB
`Complainants’ Responsive Claim Construction Brief
`824896
`CRCCB
`Respondents’ Claim Construction Reply Brief
`824904
`RRCCB
`
`
`
`

`

`On July 22, 2024, I conducted a hearing regarding the disputed claim terms.3 This order
`
`resolves the remaining claim construction disputes raised by the parties.
`
`I.
`
`BACKGROUND
`
`The asserted ’446 and ’450 patents are related—both are titled “Cooling Apparatus for
`
`Electronic Components”—and the ’450 patent issued as a continuation of the ’446 patent. ’450
`
`patent at cover. The parties agree the specifications of the ’446 and ’450 patents are materially the
`
`same and refer to the ’446 specification to discuss all claim terms. COCCB at 3 n.3; ROCCB at 1.
`
`I will follow the parties’ convention in this order.
`
`The ’446 and ’450 patents are directed to a cooling apparatus for dissipating heat generated
`
`by electronic components. ’446 patent at 1:48-50. In one embodiment, the cooling apparatus
`
`includes “an outer casing 6 installed on the base plate 2 and enclosing the housing 4, the flow
`
`guidance plate 3, and the cover member 1.” Id. at 7:61-64. The general structure of the cooling
`
`apparatus is shown in the figures below:
`
`
`3 The transcript of the hearing is available at EDIS Doc. ID 826555 and will be referred to as
`“Markman Tr.”.
`
`2
`
`

`

`
`
`Id. at Figs. 15C and 15D. As illustrated above, cover member 1 couples to base plate 2 to enclose
`
`a heat exchange unit. See id. at Abstract. Generally speaking, the cooling apparatus functions by
`
`pumping fluid at a lower temperature into the heat exchange chamber, circulating the fluid in the
`
`heat exchange chamber where it absorbs thermal energy from and cools the base plate, and then
`
`circulating the fluid to an external heat dissipating device to cool the fluid again. Id. at 1:33-44,
`
`6:66-7:27.
`
`3
`
`

`

`II.
`
`PERSON OF ORDINARY SKILL IN THE ART
`
`The ordinary and customary meaning of a claim term 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. Phillips v.
`
`AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1313 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc). Cooler Master contends that a person
`
`of ordinary skill in the art would “hold at least a bachelor’s degree in mechanical engineering,
`
`electrical engineering, or a related technical subject, and have at least two years of experience
`
`working with cooling systems.” COCCB at 5. Respondents did not articulate any specific
`
`qualifications for a person of skill in the art in their briefs. See generally ROCCB. At the hearing,
`
`the parties agreed to the standard proposed by Cooler Master. Markman Tr. at 5:25-6:11. In view
`
`of the parties’ agreement, I adopt Cooler Master’s proposed definition of a person of ordinary skill
`
`in the art.
`
`III. LEGAL PRINCIPLES
`
`“An infringement analysis entails two steps. The first step is determining the meaning and
`
`scope of the patent claims asserted to be infringed. The second step is comparing the properly
`
`construed claims to the device accused of infringing.” Markman v. Westview Instruments, Inc., 52
`
`F.3d 967, 976 (Fed. Cir. 1995) (en banc) (cleaned up), aff’d, 517 U.S. 370 (1996). Claim
`
`construction resolves legal disputes between the parties regarding claim scope. See Eon Corp. IP
`
`Holdings v. Silver Spring Networks, 815 F.3d 1314, 1319 (Fed. Cir. 2016).
`
`Evidence intrinsic to the application, prosecution, and issuance of a patent is the most
`
`significant source of the legally operative meaning of disputed claim language. See Bell Atl.
`
`Network Servs., Inc. v. Covad Commc’ns Grp., Inc., 262 F.3d 1258, 1267 (Fed. Cir. 2001). The
`
`intrinsic evidence includes the patent claims, the specification, and the prosecution history. See
`
`Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1314; see also Markman, 52 F.3d at 979.
`
`4
`
`

`

` “[T]he claims themselves provide substantial guidance as to the meaning of particular
`
`claim terms.” Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1314; see Interactive Gift Express, Inc. v. CompuServe Inc.,
`
`256 F.3d 1323, 1331 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (“In construing claims, the analytical focus must begin and
`
`remain centered on the language of the claims themselves, for it is that language that the patentee
`
`chose to use to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the patentee
`
`regards as his invention.” (cleaned up)). The context in which a term is used in an asserted claim
`
`can be “highly instructive.” Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1314. Additionally, other claims in the same
`
`patent, asserted or unasserted, may also provide guidance as to the meaning of a claim term. Id.
`
`The specification “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.” Phillips, 415 F.3d at
`
`1315 (quoting Vitronics Corp. v. Conceptronic, Inc., 90 F.3d 1576, 1582 (Fed. Cir. 1996)). “[T]he
`
`specification may reveal a special definition given to a claim term by the patentee that differs from
`
`the meaning it would otherwise possess. In such cases, the inventor’s lexicography governs.”
`
`Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1316. “In other cases, the specification may reveal an intentional disclaimer,
`
`or disavowal, of claim scope by the inventor.” Id. As a general rule, however, the particular
`
`examples or embodiments discussed in the specification are not to be read into the claims as
`
`limitations. Id. at 1323. In the end, “[t]he construction that stays true to the claim language and
`
`most naturally aligns with the patent’s description of the invention will be . . . the correct
`
`construction.” Id. at 1316 (quoting Renishaw PLC v. Marposs Societa’ per Azioni, 158 F.3d 1243,
`
`1250 (Fed. Cir. 1998)).
`
`Section 112 of the Patent Act requires that the specification “shall conclude with one or
`
`more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant
`
`regards as his invention.” 35 U.S.C. § 112(b). The Supreme Court has interpreted that section to
`
`5
`
`

`

`require “that a patent’s claims viewedin light of the specification and prosecution history inform
`
`those skilled in the art about the scope of the invention with reasonably certainty.” Nautilus, Inc.
`
`v. Biosig Instruments, Inc., 572 U.S. 898, 901 (2014). It is Respondents’ burden to prove by clear
`
`and convincing evidence that a patent claim is invalid becauseit is indefinite. See id. at 912 n.10
`
`(citing Microsoft Corp. v. i4i Ltd. P’ship, 564 U.S. 91, 95 (2011)).
`
`IV.
`
`CLAIM CONSTRUCTION
`
`A.
`
`“coupled”
`
`The term “coupled” appears in claims | and 2 of the ’446 patent and claims 1 and 3 of the
`
`°450 patent. The table below contains the constructions of this term proposed by the parties in
`
`their briefs.
`
`:
`
`Complainants’ Proposed
`
`Respondents’ Proposed “coupled”
`
`Plain and ordinary meaning,|Plain and ordinary meaning,
`i.e., “joined or combined”
`i.e., “directly connected to or
`attached to”
`
`The parties’ dispute centers on whether “coupled” permits an indirect connection or
`
`requires a direct connection. COCCB at 5; ROCCBat 10-11; see Markman Tr. at 31:18-32:8. At
`
`the hearing, Complainants represented that resolving whether “coupling” requires a direct
`
`connection is sufficient to resolve the parties’ claim construction dispute. Markman Tr. at
`
`39:17-12. Respondents generally agreed with Complainants, but also stated the issue of whether
`
`“coupling” requires a permanent connection mayarise at a future point in the context of an
`
`infringement analysis.
`
`Jd. at 40:13-8. Respondents conceded that the concept of a permanent
`
`connection with respect to the claim term “coupled” was not briefed in advance ofthe hearing. Jd.
`
`at 41:9-42:16. After further discussion, the parties agreed that the issue ofpermanenceasit relates
`
`to the term “coupled”is a question of fact for resolution in the future. Jd. at 48:11-18, 58:5-13.
`
`

`

`And as for the question of whether “coupling” requires a direct connection in the asserted patent
`
`claims, the intrinsic evidence shows that it does not.
`
`Claim 1 of the ’446 patent and claim 1 of the ’450 patent recite “a cover member coupled
`
`to the base plate.” ’446 patent at claim 1. The ’446 patent specification teaches that several
`
`“fastening techniques, such as riveting, screwing, press-fitting, and the like, fasteners, such as
`
`rivets, screws, nuts, bolts, etc., may be used to secure the cover member 1 to the base plate 2.”
`
`’446 patent at 4:17-20. The specification further teaches:
`
`However, the fasteners occupy a substantial amount of space in an
`already space-constrained environment. Also, to provide an air-
`tight seal, fastening techniques requiring sealing elements, such as
`gaskets, O-rings, washers, and the like, would further occupy space.
`
`Id. at 4:20-25. Thus, according to the specification, “gaskets, O-rings, washers, and the like” may
`
`be inserted between the cover member and the base plate to form a connection in which the cover
`
`member and the base plate may not touch each other, or, in other words, where the cover member
`
`and the base plate are not directly connected. At the hearing, Respondents conceded that
`
`connections using “gaskets, O-rings, washers, and the like” are “part of the invention.” Markman
`
`Tr. at 57:16-58:18. The disclosure of such indirect connections in the patent specification
`
`contradicts Respondents’ argument that “coupled” requires a direct connection between the cover
`
`member and base plate.
`
`To the extent that parties have a legal dispute about the permanency of the connection
`
`required by the claims, the ’446 patent specification teaches that fasteners such as “screws, nuts,
`
`bolts, etc., may be used to secure the cover member 1 to the base plate 2.” ’446 patent at 4:17-20.
`
`Screws, nuts, and bolts are readily understood to allow connection and disconnection without
`
`damaging parts. On the other hand, the ’446 patent specification also teaches that “fastening
`
`techniques, such as riveting, . . . press-fitting, and the like . . . may be used to secure the cover
`
`7
`
`

`

`member | to the base plate 2.” Jd. Disconnecting parts coupled by riveting or press-fitting may
`
`damage the parts. By including examples of more and less permanent connections, the patent
`
`specification cuts against Respondents’ position that the term “coupled” in the claims requires a
`
`permanent connection.
`
`Forthe reasons above, I determine that “coupled” in the context of the asserted claims does
`
`not require a direct or permanent connection between the claimed cover memberand claimed base
`
`plate. The term “coupled” will be construed accordingto its plain and ordinary meaning.
`
`B.
`
`“chamber”
`
`The term “chamber”appears in claim 1 of the ’446 patent and claim 1 of the ’450 patent.
`
`:
`
`Complainants’ Proposed
`
`Respondents’ Proposed
`
`plate and the cover member”
`
`Plain and ordinary meaning
`
`“an enclosed spaceor cavity,
`such as is formed by an air-
`tight seal between the base
`
`Both parties asserted “chamber” should haveits plain and ordinary meaning but disagreed
`
`on what such a meaning would be. COCCBat 10-14; ROCCBat 11-12 (“The plain and ordinary
`
`meaning of that term therefore controls, which is an ‘enclosed space or cavity.””). At the hearing,
`
`the parties agreed to a construction of “chamber” that is “fully or partially enclosed space or
`
`compartment.” Markman Tr. at 56:4-11. I adopt the parties’ agreed construction.
`
`

`

`Cc.
`
`“cavity”
`
`The term “cavity” appears in claim 1 of the ’446 patent.
`
`:
`
`Complainants’ Proposed
`
`Respondents’ Proposed
`
`Plain and ordinary meaning,|Indefinite.
`i.e., “a hollowed-out space”
`
`Alternatively,
`
`through)”
`
`Notindefinite.
`
`Plain and ordinary meaning,
`i.e., “a hollowed-out space
`(not passing all the way
`
`Complainants take the position that the term “cavity” should be afforded its plain and
`
`ordinary meaning, whichis “a hollowed-out space.” COCCBat 14-22. Respondents argue that
`
`the term “cavity” is indefinite. ROCCB at 15-20.
`
`In the event that this term is not proved
`
`indefinite, Respondents agree that a “cavity”is “a hollowed-out space”but add that the hollowed-
`
`out space would “not pass[] all the way through.” ROCCBat 15-16. For the reasons set forth
`
`below, I determine that Respondents have failed to prove clearly and convincingly that the term
`
`“cavity” is indefinite.
`
`I further determine that the plain and ordinary meaning of “cavity” is “a
`
`hollowed-out space,” and it does not foreclose the hollowed-out space from having a passageall
`
`the way through it.
`
`I determine a person of ordinary skill in the art reading claim 1 of the ’446 patent in light
`
`of the specification would understand the claimed cavity to be a hollowed-out space. See Nautilus,
`
`572 U.S. at 901. In particular, the ’446 patent specification discloses several cavities, such as a
`
`first cavity 371 and second cavity 372 illustrated in Figure 8:
`
`

`

`
`
`’446 patent at Fig. 8. The specification teaches that “the end wall 353 and the sidewalls 351, 352
`
`together form a first cavity 371.” Id. at 5:17-18. The specification further teaches that “the second
`
`cavity 372 is defined by the body 31 of the flow guidance plate 3 on the top and the top plate 11
`
`of the cover member 1 on the bottom. The end wall 353 bounds one side of the second cavity 372
`
`and the remaining three sides of the second cavity 372 are unbounded.” Id. at 5:55-60. Based on
`
`this description and illustration, the first cavity 371 and the second cavity 372 are both hollowed-
`
`out spaces.
`
`The specification also describes additional cavities that are at least partially defined by the
`
`housing component of the claimed cooling apparatus. See ’446 patent at 5:64-6:51. These cavities
`
`are not claimed in claim 1 of the ’446 patent, but the description in the specification further
`
`demonstrates that the term “cavity” would be understood by an ordinary artisan with reasonable
`
`certainty in this context. For example, the specification teaches that “the housing 4 defines a first
`
`cavity 41 that is sized or otherwise configured to receive a stator unit therein.” Id. at 5:66-67. This
`
`is shown in Figure 10, reproduced below:
`
`10
`
`

`

`
`
`As with the first cavity 371 and the second cavity 372 that are partially defined by the flow
`
`guidance plate, the first cavity 41 is partially defined by a hollowed-out space in the housing 4.
`
`The specification also teaches a “third cavity 44” and “fourth cavity 45” that are at least
`
`partially defined by the housing 4. ’446 patent at 6:34-36. These cavities are shown in Figure 11,
`
`reproduced below:
`
`
`
`11
`
`

`

`Id. at Fig. 11. Consistent with Figure 11, the specification teaches that “[t]he third cavity 44 is
`
`divided into two parts that are arranged diagonally from each other.” Id. at 6:40-41. Thus, the
`
`specification expressly contemplates that a cavity can be made up of multiple separate parts that
`
`collectively constitute a hollowed-out space.
`
`The specification also describes how the various cavities are in fluid communication with
`
`each other and with additional components of the cooling apparatus. For example, the
`
`specification teaches that “[t]he first cavity 371 is in fluid communication with the channel 423
`
`via the second plate opening 34, and the second cavity 372 is in fluid communication with the
`
`second cavity 42 of the housing 4 via the first plate opening 33.” Id. at 6:15-19. Further, “[t]he
`
`two portions of the third cavity 44 are in fluid communication with each other via the unbounded
`
`portion of the second cavity 372.” Id. at 6:46-48. These references to “fluid communication”
`
`between cavities demonstrate that a cavity in the invention can allow fluid to pass all the way
`
`through it. Further, the description of cavity 372 as having an “unbounded portion” and the
`
`illustration of that configuration in Figure 8 lead to the same conclusion: the specification shows
`
`that a cavity in the invention can allow fluid to pass all the way through it.
`
`Despite the teachings of the specification summarized above, Respondents argue a “person
`
`of ordinary skill would not know, with reasonable certainty, whether any particular structure
`
`beyond a hollowed-out space is a ‘cavity’” because the patent permits a cavity where three sides
`
`are unbounded, namely cavity 372. ROCCB at 18-19. But even while making that argument,
`
`Respondents were able to identify cavity 372 with reasonable certainty by reference to the patent
`
`specification, describing it as the space defined by “the flow guidance plate 3 on the top and the
`
`top plate 11 of the cover member 1 on the bottom” and extending from the “end wall 353” to the
`
`edge of the flow guidance plate 3. Compare id. with ’446 patent at 5:55-60. Respondents also
`
`12
`
`

`

`acknowledge that a person of ordinary skill would understand the meaning of “cavity” at least as
`
`that term is used in the context of first cavity 371. See id. at 17 (“[T]he first cavity (element 371)
`
`is arguably a ‘hollowed-out space (not passing all the way through).’”). Respondents’ own
`
`argument thus shows that, even when a cavity has openings, a person of ordinary skill in the art
`
`would still be able to understand what it is with reasonable certainty.
`
`For these reasons, I determine that Respondents have failed to show by clear and
`
`convincing evidence that a person of ordinary skill in the art would lack reasonable certainty about
`
`the scope of the “cavity” recited in claim 1 of the ’446 patent. See Nautilus, 572 U.S. at 901. The
`
`term “cavity” is not indefinite as used in claim 1 of the ’446 patent.
`
`Respondents have also failed to show that the plain and ordinary meaning of “cavity”
`
`should be restricted to a hollowed-out space “not passing all the way through.” As discussed
`
`above, the parties agree that a cavity is “a hollowed-out space.” COCCB at 14-22; ROCCB at
`
`15-16. Respondents’ proposed additional restriction that the cavity “not pass[] all the way
`
`through” is inconsistent with the specification.
`
`The specification contains many examples of fluid flowing into a cavity through one
`
`opening and then flowing out of the cavity through a different opening:
`
`The cooler fluid then flows into the first cavity 371 via the channel
`423 and the second plate opening 34. The cooler fluid then flows
`into the heat exchange chamber from the first cavity 371 via the
`first opening 14.
`
`Inside the heat exchange chamber, the heat from the base plate 2 and
`the fins 21 is transferred to the cooler fluid and the temperature of
`the cooler fluid increases. The heated fluid flows from the heat
`exchange chamber into the fourth cavity 45 via the second
`opening 15 in the cover member 1. The heated fluid is then output
`from the outlet 47 of the housing 4 and flows to the external heat
`dissipating device.
`
`’446 patent at 7:13-22 (emphasis added); see also id. at 6:46-54, 7:3-9.
`
`13
`
`

`

`The specification also expressly discloses an embodiment where “[t]he only two openings
`
`in fluid communication with the first cavity 371 are the first opening 14 of the cover member 1
`
`and the second plate opening 34 of the flow guidance plate 3.” Jd. at 5:51-54. Because the
`
`specification repeatedly discloses cavities having multiple openings through which fluid flows,it
`
`would be incorrect to limit the term to spaces with flow paths “not passingall the way through.”
`
`The term “cavity” will be construed accordingto its plain and ordinary meaning, which
`
`may encompass a space with a flow path passing all the way through it.
`
`D.
`
`“housing”
`
`The term “housing” appears in claims 1 and 14 of the ’446 patent and claim 1 of the ’450
`
`patent.
`
`:
`
`Complainants’ Proposed
`
`Respondents’ Proposed
`
`part”
`
`Plain and ordinary meaning,|Plain and ordinary meaning,
`>
`>
`7.e., “something that covers or|7.e., “a case or enclosure
`protects”
`especially for a machine or
`
`Theparties each proposedthat “housing” should be construedto haveits plain and ordinary
`
`meaning but disagreed on what the plain and ordinary meaning would be. COCCBat 22-26;
`
`ROCCBat 12-13. At the hearing, the parties agreed to a construction of “housing” to be
`
`“something that at least partially encloses one or more components.” Markman Tr. at 74:10-19. I
`
`adoptthe parties’ agreed construction.
`
`14
`
`

`

`E.
`
`“cover member”
`
`The term “cover member” appears in claims 1, 2, and 14 of the ’446 patent and in claims
`
`1 and 3 of the ’450 patent.
`
`:
`
`Complainants’ Proposed
`
`Respondents’ Proposed
`
`
`
`
`
`“cover member” Plain and ordinary meaning|Means plus function language
`pursuant to Section 112(f).
`
`Not meansplus function.
`
`Proposed construction:
`
`“a structure that provides
`cover as shown in Figures 1
`and 2 of the patents in suit”
`
`Wherebythe function is to
`provide cover and the
`structure is the structure
`shown in Figures | and 2 of
`the Patents-in-Suit. The
`means ofthis limitation
`literally include these
`structures and all equivalents
`thereto.
`
`
`
`Respondentsassert the term “cover member” should be construed as a means-plus-function
`
`limitation pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 112(f) and be limited to the cover structures shown in Figures
`
`1 and 2 ofthe ’446 patent and their equivalents. ROCCBat 13-15. Complainants arguethat “cover
`
`member”is not a means-plus-function term and should be affordedits plain and ordinary meaning.
`
`COCCBat 26-29. For the following reasons, I determine that the term “cover member”is not a
`
`means-plus-function limitation and will be afforded its plain and ordinary meaning.
`
`4 The parties originally proposed construing both “member” and “cover member”and presented
`arguments on both together. See COCCBat 26-29; ROCCBat 13-15. At the hearing, the parties
`agreed that only “cover member” neededto be construed as “member” only appearsin the asserted
`claims in the context of “cover member.” Markman Tr. at 76:24-77:10.
`
`15
`
`

`

`To determine whether section 112(f) applies to a claim limitation, the first inquiry is
`
`“whether the words of the claim are understood by persons of ordinary skill in the art to have a
`
`sufficiently definite meaning as the name for structure.” Williamson v. Citrix Online, 792 F.3d
`
`1339, 1349 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (en banc in relevant part to “abandon characterizing as ‘strong’ the
`
`presumption that a limitation lacking the word ‘means’ is not subject to § 112, para. 6”). If a claim
`
`does not use the word “means,” there is a rebuttable presumption that the statute does not apply.
`
`Id. However, if “the claim term fails to ‘recite[ ] sufficiently definite structure’ or else recites
`
`‘function without reciting sufficient structure for performing that function,’” the presumption may
`
`be rebutted and the statute may be applied. Id. at 1348 (quoting Watts v. XL Sys., Inc., 232 F.3d
`
`877, 880 (Fed. Cir. 2000)).
`
`Here, the claims do not include the word “means,” and accordingly there is no presumption
`
`that “cover member” should be construed pursuant to section 112(f). The inquiry then becomes
`
`whether a person of ordinary skill in the art would understand the term to recite sufficiently definite
`
`structure.
`
`The words of the asserted claims show that a “cover member” would be understood by
`
`ordinary artisans to be a specific structure. For example, claim 1 of the ’446 patent and claim 1 of
`
`the ’450 patent recite “a cover member coupled to the base plate” where the “cover member” is
`
`“coupled to the base plate” that “at least partially enclose[s] the heat exchange unit,” which makes
`
`clear that the “cover member” is a specific structure. See, e.g., ’446 patent at claim 1. The claims
`
`also recite that the cover member and the base plate together define a heat exchange chamber that
`
`includes the heat exchange unit, reinforcing that the “cover member” is a specific structure. Id.
`
`The claim language also specifies that the “cover member” has two openings, again confirming
`
`that the “cover member” is a specific structure. Id.
`
`16
`
`

`

`Moreover, dependent claim 2 of the ’446 patent and dependent claim 3 of the ’450 patent
`
`recite that “the cover member is coupled to the base plate such that the first and second elongated
`
`slots extend perpendicular to the plurality of fins.” See, e.g., ’446 patent at claim 2. These claims
`
`further describe the specific structure of the claimed “cover member.”
`
`The specifications of the ’446 at ’450 patents also confirm that an ordinary artisan would
`
`understand “cover member” to connote a specific structure. The ’446 patent specification, for
`
`example, contains several figures that illustrate the cover member as a structure, labeled as
`
`element 1:
`
`
`
`17
`
`

`

`’446 patent at Figs. 1, 2, and 21. In addition, the ’446 patent specification describes an embodiment
`
`in which the cover member is “disposed on the base plate 2 such that all the fins 21 are received
`
`in the space 13.” Id. at 4:8-9. The cover member contains “first and second openings 14 and 15”
`
`with at least one of the openings “positioned over the fins 21.” Id. at 4:26-28. These teachings
`
`again confirm the claimed “cover member” would be understood to be a specific structure.
`
`The intrinsic evidence thus demonstrates that the claim term “cover member” describes a
`
`specific structure and that it should not be interpreted as a means-plus-function term under
`
`section 112(f). Accordingly, “cover member” will be construed to have its plain and ordinary
`
`meaning.
`
`SO ORDERED.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`18
`
`