Opinion ID: 210504
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: “Vibratory Dispenser”

Text: The district court construed “vibratory dispenser” as “a device that uses vibration in order to dispense medication, and not a device that merely assists in the dispensing,” thereby rejecting AutoMed’s proposed construction, “a dispenser that uses vibration to aid in the dispensing function.” Claim Construction Opinion, slip op. at 18-19. Microfil argues that under the district court’s construction, vibration must be the exclusive force 2006-1620 5 causing the dispensing of medication. Microfil thus attempts to exclude devices requiring the assistance of gravity from the scope of the claims. AutoMed challenges Microfil’s interpretation of the district court’s construction and maintains that vibration need not be the sole force used to dispense medication. We agree with the district court’s construction, but clarify that to the extent Microfil reads it to require the use of vibration alone to dispense pills, it is incorrect. Nothing in the language of the claims or the specifications indicates that the term “vibratory” should be interpreted to mean “vibratory only.” Even Microfil has previously admitted that the claimed dispenser requires gravity—in addition to vibration—to effectively dispense pills. See Br. Supp. Defs.’ First Mot. for Partial Summ. J. for NonInfringement (Dckt. No. 47) at 10. The preferred embodiments corroborate this admission; both specifications indicate that internal ramps position pills to be dispensed through a gate on the bottom of the container or canister, which opens to allow pills to drop out during the vibratory dispenser’s operation. This precludes any claim construction wholly excluding the role of gravity. See Vitronics Corp. v. Conceptronic, Inc., 90 F.3d 1576, 1583 (Fed. Cir. 1996). Thus, we affirm the district court’s construction with the clarification that natural forces—including gravity—are not excluded from the dispensing process.