Opinion ID: 210504
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: “Controller”

Text: The district court construed the term “controller” to mean “a single control system [that] regulates the entire process.” In so doing, the district court rejected AutoMed’s preferred construction of “a device or system that regulates a process or another device” as inconsistent with the specification. AutoMed Techs., Inc. v. Microfil, LLC, No. 04-CV-5596, slip op. at 17-18 (N.D. Ill. Oct. 26, 2005) (“Claim Construction Opinion”). In applying this construction, the district court then held that “multiple controllers . . . coordinated by a master computer” could not constitute a single control system. Infringement Opinion, slip op. at 8. In effect, the district court’s application treated the “single control system” as referring to a single control device. Id. (emphasis added). AutoMed argues that the district court erred by limiting “controller” to a single control device, while Microfil urges us to adopt a definition from a technical dictionary, which defines “controller” as “[a] module or specific device which operates automatically to regulate a controlled variable or system.” Charles J. Sippl, Microcomputer Dictionary 85 (2d ed. 1981). Microfil misrepresents this definition in its brief, however, by introducing 2006-1620 3 the modifier “single” before “module or specific device,” and by ignoring the first definition listed, which recites “[a]n element or group of elements . . . .” See id. (emphasis added). The cited dictionary definition does not limit the term “controller” to a device as distinguished from a group, collection, or system of devices. We agree with the district court’s initial construction, with the clarification that the “controller” need not be limited to a single device, as applied by the district court and asserted by Microfil. We see no basis in the intrinsic record to warrant reading the term “controller” to be limited to a single device or to any particular hardware or software. The specifications of the ’671 and ’927 patents support a broad interpretation of “controller.” While the specifications differ in some respects, these differences are not material to our analysis here; we rely on text common to both specifications. Moreover, “the same term or phrase should be interpreted consistently where it appears in claims of common ancestry.” Epcon Gas Sys., Inc. v. Bauer Compressors, Inc., 279 F.3d 1022, 1030 (Fed. Cir. 2002). The specifications disclose at least two structures that perform control functions: a “controller 180,” which apparently controls only the rate of vibration; and a “control system 80,” which seems to control many aspects of the entire process. Compare, e.g., ’927 patent col.8 ll.51-59, with id. col.11 ll.43-46. Unfortunately, the specifications fall short of clarity in outlining the exact functions and details of the control system software and hardware. Even though the relationship between these structures is not entirely clear from the written description, what is unmistakable is that no single device is disclosed which performs or is capable of performing all of the functions recited in claim 1 of the ‘927 patent, namely, to receive a patient’s prescription information and to control the entire apparatus, including the 2006-1620 4 vibratory dispenser, the container transport assembly, and the vial transport assembly. See ’927 patent claim 1. To the contrary, the patents describe only in general terms the control of several distinct systems and processes. E.g., ’927 patent col.8 ll.1-2 (drive unit vibration); id. col.10, ll.58-62 (vial transport); id. col.11, ll.47-63 (patient entry process). With all due respect to the view expressed in the dissent, a construction of the term “controller” to be “a single module or specific device which operates automatically to regulate a controlled variable or system,” as argued by Microfil, would fly in the face of the specification and would engraft onto the claims an unwarranted limitation. See Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1322-23 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc) (cautioning that dictionary definitions cannot be used to “contradict any definition found in or ascertained by a reading of the patent documents” (quoting Vitronics Corp. v. Conceptronic, Inc., 90 F.3d 1576, 1584 n.6 (Fed. Cir. 1996))). Without a clear indication from the patentee that a single device must control these varied functions, it is improper to limit the term “controller” to a single device rather than a single system. Accordingly, while we affirm the district court’s initial construction of “controller” to mean a “single control system that regulates the entire process,” we clarify that the controller need not be limited to a single device, nor to any particular hardware or software.