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

Heading: “Container” and “Canister”

Text: As an alternative basis for affirmance, Microfil challenges the district court’s construction of “container” and “canister,” as “any suitable design that allows dispensing of countable oral solid drugs.” Claim Construction Opinion, slip op. at 17. Microfil contends that these terms, which the parties agree are synonymous, should be limited 2006-1620 6 to a unitary structure. AutoMed counters that nothing in the intrinsic record compels this narrow construction. Having considered the claims, the written description, and the figures of the ’927 and ’671 patents, we agree with the district court’s refusal to read in this additional limitation. See ’927 patent, col.6 ll.15-17 (“The canister may be of any suitable design that allows dispensing of countable oral solid drugs within an automated drug dispensing system.”); ’671 patent, col.6 ll.17-19 (same). We accordingly affirm the district court’s construction of these terms.