Same Term or Phrase Should be Interpreted Consistently

Automed Technologies, Inc. v. Microfil, LLC, [2006-1620](July 16, 2007)[LINN. Mayer, Clevenger] NON-PRECEDENTIAL The Federal Circuit affirmed grant of summary judgment of non-infringement, and affirmed the award of nominal damages for breach of contract.
SIGNIFICANCE: 1. The same term or phrase should be interpreted consistent where it appears in claims of common ancestry. A claim term with the definite article "the" needs proper antecedent basis.
BRIEF: At issue was the meaning of the term "controller". The Federal Circuit considered the use of the term is related patents, noting "the same term or phrase should be interpreted consistently where it appears in claims of common ancestry," citing Epcon Gas. The Federal Circuit found no basis to limit controller to a single device rather than a system. Also at issue was the term "vibratory dispenser". The Federal Circuit found no basis to limit vibratory dispenser to a dispenser that only used vibration, and affirmed the district court's interpretation. Also at issue were the terms "container" and "canister" and the Federal Circuit affirmed the district court which refused to limit these structures to unitary structures.
The Federal Circuit also pointed out an error in claim 27 which appeared to be mistakenly dependent on 20 because it referred to "the controller" when claim 20 did not provide antecedent basis for the term, citing NTP, Inc. for the proposition that a claim term employing the definite article "the" requires an antecedent basis.
Regarding infringement, the Federal Circuit rejected AutoMed's assertion of infringement, noting that a device is capable of being modified to operate in an infringing manner is not sufficient by itself to support a finding of infringement.