395 F.Supp.2d 612 (2005)
PIONEER LABORATORIES, INC., d/b/a Pioneer Surgical Technology Plaintiff,
v.
STRYKER CORP., and Howmedica Osteonics Corp., Defendants.
No. 2:05-CV-41.
United States District Court, W.D. Michigan, Northern Division.
October 13, 2005.
*613 Ronald D. Keefe, Kendricks, Bordeau, Adamini, Chilman & Greenlee PC, Marquette, MI; Philip T. Petti and Rudy I. Kratz, Fitch, Even, Tabin & Flannery, Chicago, IL, for Plaintiff.
D. Andrew Portinga and David J. Gass, Miller, Johnson, Snell & Cummiskey PLC, Grand Rapids, MI, Robert A. Surrette, Gregory J. Vogler, McAndrews Held & Malloy Ltd., Chicago, IL, for Defendants.

*614 OPINION

QUIST, District Judge.
Plaintiff Pioneer Laboratories, Inc. ("Pioneer") filed a complaint against Defendants Stryker Corp. and Howmedica Osteonics Corp. (collectively referred to as "Stryker") seeking a declaration that its surgical pedicle screw system does not infringe any of the claims of U.S. Patent No. 6,565,565 ("the '565 patent"), and that the '565 Patent is invalid under 35 U.S.C. §§ 102, 103, and 112. (Pl.'s Compl. ¶¶ 13 & 15.) Defendants moved for summary judgment on Plaintiff's claims, arguing that there is no genuine issue of material fact 1) that Plaintiff's product literally infringes the '565 patent, and 2) that the '565 patent is not invalid. For the following reasons, the Court will deny Defendants' motion for summary judgment that Plaintiff's product literally infringes the '565 patent, grant summary judgment in favor of Plaintiff that its product does not literally infringe the '565 patent, and dismiss Defendants' motion for summary judgment that the '565 patent is not invalid as moot.

BACKGROUND
Pioneer, a Michigan corporation with its principal place of business in Marquette, Michigan, is engaged in the manufacture and sale of medical products. Stryker, a Michigan corporation with its principal place of business in Kalamazoo, Michigan, is also engaged in the manufacture and sale of medical products. Howmedica, a New Jersey corporation with its principal place of business in New Jersey, is the owner of the '565 patent. Howmedica is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Stryker.
The technology at issue in this case relates to implantable spinal stabilization systems, specifically, pedicle screws, which are used in the surgical treatment of spinal disorders. A pedicle screw is a particular type of bone screw designed for implantation into a vertebral pedicle. Such screws are used to connect cylindrical spinal rods to the spine. (Defs.' Mem. Supp. Mot. Summ. J. Infringement at 2-3.) The '565 patent is directed to Stryker's implantable spinal stabilization system. Specifically, the patent is directed to a device for securing spinal rods of a spinal stabilization system. ('565 Patent, at [54].) The '565 patent was issued on May 20, 2003, and has three components: "a) a head portion having a channel extending there through configured to receive a spinal rod; b) a locking cap including a first [or upper] portion configured to engage an interior surface of the head portion, and a second [or lower] portion having an elongated recess configured to engage an exterior surface of a spinal rod received by the channel [extending through the head portion] ..., the first [or upper] portion of the locking cap being mechanically joined and configured to rotate relative to the second portion of the locking cap; and c) a fastener portion depending from the head portion and configured to engage the spine." ('565 Patent col. 12, ll. 6-20.) (See '565 Patent figs. 14a and 11 below.)
*615
The concededly novel component of the '565 patent (id. col. 8, l. 60), and the one which forms the dispute in this case, is the patent's two-part locking cap. The patent's specification describes the locking cap's upper portion as having a cylindrical body with a pair of arcuate (i.e. bowed) engagement flanges that extend outward from the cap body. (Id. col. 9, ll. 64-67.) Each engagement flange has a low side and a high side (id. col. 8, ll. 56-57) which enables it to operatively engage inclined arcuate engagement slots in the system's head portion. (Id. col. 6, ll. 45-67.) (See '565 Patent fig. 12B below.)

Pioneer introduced its Quantum pedicle screw in September 2004. Like the pedicle screw system disclosed in the '565 patent, the Quantum system has components *616 common to essentially all pedicle screw systems, such as a head, a fastener, and a locking cap. Like the locking cap disclosed in the '565 patent, Pioneer's system contains a two piece locking cap, an upper-portion (or cap) and a lower portion (or saddle). As in the '565 patent, the upper portion of Pioneer's locking cap contains two bowed tabs (or flanges) that fit into two slots in the system's head portion. Moreover, the cap is connected to the saddle so that the cap can rotate relative to the stationary saddle. Contrary to the '565 patent's specification, the tabs on the upper portion of Pioneer's locking cap and the slots in the head are not inclined. Moreover, the bottom of the upper cap and the top of the saddle "are contoured so that as the cap is rotated the bottom of the cap pushes against the saddle to separate the saddle from the cap and lock the rod in place." (Pl.'s Opp'n Defs.' Mot. Summ. J. Infringement at 8.) A spring clip, which connects the saddle to the cap, permits the saddle to separate from the cap as the contoured portion of the cap pushes down on the saddle. (See id. fig. 4 below.)

As the spinal rod is locked into place upon rotation of the cap, the tabs on the upper portion of the locking cap are pushed up into and mesh with the top inside surface of the slots in the head portion. (See Pl.'s Opp'n Defs.' M. Summ. J. Infringement at 9.)
*617

DISCUSSION
Defendants have moved for summary judgment that Plaintiff's pedicle screw literally infringes its '565 patent and that its patent is not invalid. Consideration of both these claims requires a court to first ascertain the scope of the patent holder's claimed invention. See Athletic Alternatives, Inc., v. Prince Mfg., Inc., 73 F.3d 1573, 1578 (Fed.Cir.1996) (noting that "[p]atent infringement analysis [requires] ... the ... construction of the meaning and scope of the asserted claim"); SIBIA Neurosciences, Inc. v. Cadus Pharm. Corp., 225 F.3d 1349, 1355 (Fed.Cir.2000) (recognizing that "[t]he first step in any invalidity analysis is claim construction").
In this case, as is commonly seen in patent cases, there is a substantial dispute over the proper interpretation of the claims. Specifically, the dispute concerns the proper role of the specification in interpreting the claims. The Federal Circuit elaborated upon the proper role the specification plays in claim interpretation in Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303 (Fed.Cir.2005). In the attempt to properly construe the claims here, the Court will first lay out the framework as articulated by the Phillips court. As a starting point, the Federal Circuit acknowledged that it "is a `bedrock principle' of patent law that `the claims of a patent define the invention to which the patentee is entitled the right to exclude.'" Id. at 1312 (citation omitted). In interpreting the claims, the "words of a claim `are generally given their ordinary and customary meaning,' [which] ... is the meaning that the [words] would have to a person of ordinary skill in the art in question at the time of the invention, i.e., as of the effective filing date of the patent application." Id. at 1312-13. "Importantly," the court noted, "the person of ordinary skill in the art is deemed to read the claim term not only in the context of the particular claim in which the disputed term appears, but in the context of the entire patent, including the specification." Id. at 1313. "In some cases, the ordinary meaning of claim language as understood by a person of skill in the art may be readily apparent ..., and claim construction in such cases involves little more than the application of the widely accepted meaning of commonly understood words. In such circumstances, general purpose *618 dictionaries may be helpful." Id. at 1314. However, the court continued, in many cases "the meaning of a claim term as understood by persons of skill in the art is often not immediately apparent, [and in those cases] the court looks to `those sources available to the public that show what a person of skill in the art would have understood disputed claim language to mean.'" Id. (citation omitted). Those sources include not only "the words of the claims themselves," but also "the remainder of the specification." Id.
As the Federal Circuit had stated previously, and re-iterated in Phillips, "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 disputed terms.'" Id. at 1315 (quoting Vitronics Corp. v. Conceptronic, Inc., 90 F.3d 1576, 1582 (Fed.Cir.1996)). See Standard Oil Co. v. Am. Cyanamid Co., 774 F.2d 448, 452 (Fed.Cir.1985) (noting that "[t]he descriptive part of the specification aids in ascertaining the scope and meaning of the claims inasmuch as the words of the claims must be based on the description. The specification is, thus, the primary basis for construing the claims."); Bates v. Coe, 98 U.S. 31, 38, 8 Otto 31, 25 L.Ed. 68 (1878) ("in case of doubt or ambiguity it is proper in all cases to refer back to the descriptive portions of the specification to aid ... in ascertaining the true intent and meaning of the language employed in the claims"). In summarizing the role the specification plays in interpreting claims, the court stated:
Ultimately, the interpretation to be given a term can only be determined and confirmed with a full understanding of what the inventors actually invented and intended to envelop with the claim. The construction that stays true to the claim language and most naturally aligns with the patent's description of the invention will be, in the end, the correct construction.
Id. at 1316. "It is therefore entirely appropriate," the court acknowledged, "when conducting claim construction, [for a court] to rely heavily on the written description for guidance as to the meaning of the claims." Id. at 1317.
After acknowledging the importance the specification plays in properly interpreting claims, the court then warned about "reading limitations from the specification into the claim." Id. at 1323. Although the court recognized that "the distinction between using the specification to interpret the meaning of a claim and importing limitations from the specification into the claim can be a difficult one to apply in practice," it assured the courts with the duty to draw those distinctions that "the line ... can be discerned with reasonable certainty... if ... [a] court's focus remains on understanding how a person of ordinary skill in the art would understand the claim terms."[1]Id. For instance, the court noted, "we have ... rejected the contention that if a patent describes only a single embodiment, the claims of a patent must be construed as being limited to that embodiment ... because persons of ordinary *619 skill in the art rarely would confine their definitions of terms to the exact representations depicted in the embodiments." Id. "To avoid importing limitations from the specification into the claims," the court instructed, "it is important to keep in mind that the purposes of the specification are to teach and enable those of skill in the art to make and use the invention, and ... [o]ne of the best ways to teach a person of ordinary skill in the art to make and use [an] invention is to provide an example of how to practice [it].... Much of the time, upon reading the specification in that context," the court opined, "it will become clear whether the patentee is setting out specific examples to accomplish those goals, or whether the patentee instead intends for the claims and the embodiments in the specification to be ... coextensive."
With this language as our framework, the Court now turns to the disputed claim language. Claim 1 is representative of the independent claims that Stryker alleges Pioneer to have infringed. The relevant portion of the language of claim 1 is that which relates to Stryker's locking cap. It provides, "[w]hat is claimed is: 1. A device for securing a spinal rod to the spine comprising ... b) a locking cap including a first portion configured to engage an interior surface of the head portion and a second portion having an elongated recess configured to engage an exterior surface of a spinal rod received by the channel ..., the first portion of the locking cap being mechanically joined and configured to rotate relative to the second portion of the locking cap."
The language in dispute, as highlighted above, is "a first portion configured to engage an interior surface of the head portion." Specifically, the dispute concerns the proper interpretation of "configured to engage" as used in this context. Stryker offers no interpretation of the disputed claim language beyond asserting that the words should be given their "plain and ordinary meaning." Although the ordinary meaning of a claim term "is the meaning that the term would have to person of ordinary skill in the art," Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1312-13, Stryker provides no interpretation as to how the disputed terms would be understood by someone skilled in the art. Rather, it simply concludes that every claim element in the '565 patent is present in Pioneer's pedicle screw system. With specific reference to the locking cap, it asserts that Pioneer's locking cap, like the one disclosed in the '565 patent, includes a first portion (with arcuate engagement flanges) configured to engage an interior surface of the head portion (i.e. arcuate engagement slots), and thus literally infringes the '565 patent.
Pioneer argues, in contrast, that, in light of the patent's specification, the claim language "a first portion configured to engage an interior surface of the head portion" must be construed to mean a first portion configured to cammingly engage an interior surface of the head portion. In support of this construction, Pioneer points out, as instructed by Phillips, that claims must be interpreted "not only in the context of the particular claim in which the disputed term appears, but in the context of the entire patent, including the specification." 415 F.3d at 1313. Pioneer argues that "the '565 patent's specification discloses only one approach for providing the force to lock the [spinal] rod in place." (Pl.'s Opp'n Defs.' Mot. Summ. J. Infringement at 3.) "Every one of the '565 patent's disclosed locking caps, in every embodiment," Pioneer notes, "requires inclined arcuate engagement flanges that rotate in inclined arcuate engagement slots within the head portion to create [a] downward, camming force on the rod located in the head portion." *620 ( Pl.'s Supp. Mem. Re. Phillips v. AWH Corp. at 6.) The following description of the engagement between the arcuate engagement flanges on the upper portion of the locking cap with the inside of the head portion is representative of the descriptions of this engagement throughout the specification:
The flanged portion 64 of locking cap 20 is defined ... by two diametrically opposed arcuate engagement flanges 82 and 84 which are dimensioned and configured for operative engagement with two complementary diametrically opposed arcuate engagement slots 86 and 88 defined in the interior surfaces of the opposed side walls 30 and 32 of head portion 22.
[E]ngagement flanges 82 and 84 define ramped camming surfaces 92 and 94, respectively. Camming surfaces 92 and 94 are of opposite angular inclination with respect to one another. More particularly, each engagement flange has a low side ... and a high side ... whereby the low sides of the two flanges are diametrically opposed from one another as are the high sides. Actually, the camming surfaces of the flanges are mirror images of one another.
[T]he arcuate engagement slots 86 and 88 in head portion 22 of fastener 14 have inclined surfaces which mate with the ramped camming surfaces 92 and 94 of flanges 82 and 84.
('565 Patent col. 6, l. 45 to col. 7, l. 1.) The patent's specification further provides:
[C]are must be taken to ensure that the upper portion 220a of locking cap 220 is positioned in such a manner so that the low sides of the flanges ... are aligned with the high sides of the engagement channels ..., or the flanges will not cammingly engage the channels upon rotation of the upper portion 220a of the locking cap 220 relative to the head portion 222.
Once the upper portion 220a of locking cap 220 has been properly oriented with respect to head portion 222 ..., it is rotated... relative to the lower portion 220b of locking cap 220.... Thereupon, the arcuate engagement flanges 284, 286 of upper portion 220 cammingly engage the corresponding engagement slots 284.
('565 Patent col. 11, ll. 15-30.) In light of this specification language, Pioneer concludes, the claim language "a first portion configured to engage an interior surface of the head portion" must be interpreted as requiring a first portion configured to cammingly engage an interior surface of the head portion (through the mating of inclined arcuate engagement flanges with inclined arcuate engagement slots), which produces the downward locking force needed to secure a spinal rod in place.
In interpreting claims, as instructed by Phillips, a court is to give the words of the claims their ordinary meaning as understood by a person of ordinary skill in the art. Phillips, 415 at 1312-13. The Phillips court also noted that "[i]n some cases, the ordinary meaning of claim language ... may be readily apparent ..., and claim construction in such cases involves little more than the application of the widely accepted [i.e. general purpose dictionary] meaning of commonly understood words." Id. at 1313. Stryker appears to maintain that this is such a case. Although Stryker asserts that it is not proffering a dictionary definition of the phrase "configured to engage," (see Defs.' Resp. Re. Phillips v. AWH Corp. at 3), it must be advancing such an interpretation in maintaining this claim for literal infringement. This is so because the flanges on Pioneer's and Stryker's locking caps engage with the heads in their pedicle screw *621 systems in different ways. Stryker's inclined flanges, as evidenced by the specification, cammingly engage inclined slots in the head portion, thus creating the force necessary to secure the rod, whereas Pioneer's flanges, which are not inclined, are merely pressed against the slots in the head portion of its system as the lower surface of Pioneer's upper cap cammingly engages the top surface of the saddle. For Stryker to successfully prosecute its infringement claim, then, it must be advancing an interpretation of "configured to engage" that is broader than "designed to cammingly engage." Its interpretation of "a locking cap including a first portion configured to engage an interior surface of the head portion" must be "a locking cap with a first portion `designed to mesh or interlock' with engagement slots in the head portion" since, with such an interpretation, Pioneer's system would literally infringe the '565 patent, as its locking cap includes a first portion "designed to mesh or interlock" with engagement slots in a head portion.
Stryker's "dictionary definition," however, cannot serve as the definitive definition of the disputed claim language in this case. For one, this is not a case where the ordinary meaning of the disputed claim language as understood by a person of skill in the art is so readily apparent that the "claim construction involves little more than the application of the widely accepted meaning of" the disputed terms. It is true, of course, that the Court is not unacquainted with the words "configure" or "engage," in the sense that a lay judge could recite their dictionary definitions. Detached from their context, however, these words can be defined only very generally. For instance, Webster defines "configure" as "1. to shape according to some model, and 2. to arrange in a certain form, figure, or shape: give a configuration to." Webster's Third New International Dictionary 476 (1971). Similarly, Oxford English Dictionary defines "configure" as "to fashion according to something else as a model, and ... to put together in a certain form or figure." Oxford English Dictionary, available at http://www.oed.com. Webster defines "engage" as "to be or become in gear: interlock and interact," and Oxford English Dictionary defines "engage" as "to interlock with, fit into a corresponding part." Webster's Third New International Dictionary 751 (1971); Oxford English Dictionary, available at http://www.oed.com. From the dictionary definitions, then, the most one can say is that the phrase "a locking cap including a first portion configured to engage an interior surface of the head portion" means that the cap's first portion is shaped or arranged in a certain way to interlock or fit with the interior surface of the head portion. The way in which the locking cap is shaped or arranged to interlock or fit with the head portion, is, of course, indiscernible from the dictionary definition. Thus, in view of the fact that the ordinary meaning of the disputed terms is not readily apparent, the Court must look to the specification to properly construe the claims.[2]
*622 Not only must the Court look to the patent's specification because the ordinary meaning of the terms is not readily apparent, but also because, as instructed by Phillips, "the person of ordinary skill in the art is deemed to read the claim ... in the context of the entire patent, including the specification." 415 F.3d at 1313. Reading the disputed claim language in the context of the specification, the Court concludes that the phrase "a locking cap including a first portion configured to engage an interior surface of the head portion" requires a locking cap with a first portion configured to cammingly engage an interior surface of the head portion. The '565 patent's specification envisions a number of different approaches and embodiments for teaching a person skilled in the art to make and use the invention. For instance, the specification explicitly recognizes that the disclosure is not limited to the particular fasteners shown in the embodiment, but rather envisions that any component designed for attachment to a spinal rod could be used. ('565 Patent col. 5, ll. 27-35.) Moreover, the specification also envisioned the following: both a one-piece and two-piece locking cap, (id. figs. 9 and 12(b)), a one-piece locking cap with transverse recesses on the bottom and one with a flat bottom surface, (id. col. 6, ll. 25-30), different tooling methods for rotation of the locking cap, (id. col. 6, ll. 37-40), and arcuate engagement flanges with and without radially inwardly directed tapers. (Id. col. 8, ll. 30-34.) The patent's specification, however, discloses one and only one approach for generating the force necessary to secure a spinal rod in place. That is, consistently throughout the specification, the embodiments contain a locking cap including an upper portion with inclined arcuate engagement flanges designed to cammingly engage inclined arcuate engagement slots in the head portion.
Stryker argues that an interpretation of the claim that requires a camming engagement between the first portion of a locking cap and the interior surface of a head portion would improperly "narrow the scope of the asserted claims to the embodiment disclosed in the specification of the '565 patent." (Defs.' Resp. Re. Phillips v. AWH Corp. at 3.) To avoid improperly limiting a claim's scope to an embodiment in the specification, the Federal Circuit has instructed that courts should "focus... on ... how a person of ordinary skill in the art would understand the claim terms." Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1323. The Court concludes that not only would a person of ordinary skill in the art consult the specification to aid in determining the meaning of the disputed terms, but such a person would also conclude that the claims require a locking cap with a first portion configured to cammingly engage an interior surface of a head portion, for "[t]here is nothing in the context [of the specification] to indicate that the patentee contemplated any alternative" for a locking cap other than the one disclosed. Snow v. Lake Shore & Mich. S. Ry. Co., 121 U.S. 617, 629-30, 7 S.Ct. 1343, 1350-51, 30 *623 L.Ed. 1004 (1887). See Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1323 ("To avoid importing limitations from the specification into the claims," a court should read the specification with an eye towards "whether the patentee is setting out specific examples" to teach a person of ordinary skill in the art to make and use the invention, "or whether the patentee instead intends for the claims and the embodiments in the specification to be ... coextensive."). Moreover, Stryker "is not entitled to a claim construction divorced from the context of the written description." Nystrom v. Trex Co., 424 F.3d 1136, 1144-45 (Fed.Cir.2005). In this case, the written description consistently describes a device where the camming force necessary to secure a rod into place is generated by the engagement of inclined arcuate engagement flanges with inclined arcuate engagement slots in the inside surface of a head portion.
Stryker also asserts that the phrase "a first portion configured to engage an interior surface of [a] head portion" cannot be interpreted as requiring a camming engagement because it did not disavow the full scope of the claim terms' ordinary and customary meanings. Requiring a disavowal in the specification to construe a claim term more narrowly (or simply differently) than its dictionary definition "improperly restricts the role of the specification in claim construction." Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1320. As the Phillips court explained, "[a]ssigning such a limited role to the specification, and in particular requiring that any definition of claim language in the specification be express, is inconsistent with our rulings that the specification is `the single best guide to the meaning of a disputed term.'" Id. at 1321 (citation omitted). Rather, a specification may not only expressly define a claim term, but it may also "define claim terms by implication such that the meaning may be found in or ascertained by a reading of the patent documents." Irdeto Access, Inc. v. Echostar Satellite Corp., 383 F.3d 1295, 1300 (Fed.Cir.2004). In other words, "[w]hat Phillips now counsels is that in the absence of something in the written description... to provide ... notice to the public ... that the inventor intended a disputed term to cover more than the ordinary and customary meaning [as] revealed by the context of the intrinsic record, it is improper to read the term to encompass a broader definition simply because it may be found in a dictionary." Nystrom, at 1144-45 (emphasis added). In this case, the Court will not read "configured to engage" in "a first portion configured to engage an interior surface of [a] head portion" to encompass the breadth of its dictionary definition where the phrase's meaning as revealed by the context of the intrinsic evidence demonstrates that the phrase must be interpreted as requiring a camming engagement between the first portion of the locking cap and the interior surface of the head portion.
Finally, the Court addresses Stryker's argument that Phillips, despite its extensive discussion of the importance of the specification in claim construction, supports its position that the disputed terms should not be read as requiring a "camming engagement." In Phillips, the dispute was over the meaning of the term "baffles." 415 F.3d at 1324. Both parties, stipulating to a dictionary definition, agreed that "the term `baffles' refers to objects that check, impede, or obstruct the flow of something." Id. The dispute concerned whether "baffles," as used in the claims, must be disposed at angles other than 90 degrees. Although the specification contained no disclosure of baffles disposed at right angles, but rather only at acute or obtuse angles, Stryker notes, the court concluded that the definition of baffles did not exclude baffles disposed at *624 right angels. Id. at 1327. Similarly, Stryker asserts, the Court should not limit the disputed phrase "configured to engage" as requiring a camming engagement simply because that is the only embodiment disclosed in the specification.
The Phillips court reached its conclusion that baffles as used in the claim did not exclude those disposed at 90 degree angles not because it advanced a dictionary interpretation of the disputed term above that revealed in the patent's intrinsic evidence. Rather, it reached its conclusion upon reading the disputed language in the context of the entire patent. That is, applying the doctrine of claim differentiation, the court noted that since the dependent claims provided specific functions, such as baffles "disposed at angles for deflecting projectiles," to avoid rendering the independent claim redundant, it construed the independent claim as not requiring baffles disposed at acute or obtuse angles. Id. at 1324-25. In this case, however, the doctrine of claim differentiation is not applicable, as no other claims reference how "a first portion [is to be] configured to engage an interior surface of [a] head portion." Rather, in this case, the disputed claim language is ambiguous, and it is not made clear by reference to the remaining claims. Recognizing that "the interpretation to be given a term can only be determined and confirmed with a full understanding of what the inventors actually invented and intended to envelop with the claim," id. at 1316, this Court consulted the remainder of the specification. Id. at 1316. Upon review of the specification, the Court concludes that it demonstrates that a "locking cap including a first portion configured to engage an interior surface of [a] head portion" requires a camming engagement between the first portion of the locking cap and the interior surface of the head portion.
In light of this claim construction, the Court must now determine "whether the accused product infringes the properly construed claim." Athletic Alternatives, 73 F.3d at 1578. "Where, as here, the parties do not dispute any relevant facts regarding the accused product but disagree over which of two possible meanings [of the disputed claim language] is the proper one, the question of literal infringement collapses to one of claim construction and is thus amenable to summary judgement." Id. Since it is undisputed that Pioneer's product does not contain a locking cap with a first portion that is designed to cammingly engage an interior surface of the head portion, the Court concludes that no reasonable trier of fact could find that Pioneer's product literally infringes the '565 patent. Thus, the Court will deny Stryker's motion for summary judgment of infringement and grant summary judgment in favor of Pioneer that its product, in light of this Court's claim construction, does not literally infringe the '565 patent.
Finally, with respect to Stryker's motion for summary judgment that the '565 patent is not invalid, the Court will dismiss the motion as moot in light of its grant of summary judgment in favor of Pioneer that Pioneer's product does not literally infringe the '565 patent. In light of this conclusion, a decision on the motion for summary judgment that the '565 patent is not invalid is unnecessary, for even if the Court were to find that the patent is not invalid, that would have no impact upon the disposition of this action (i.e. Pioneer's product would still not literally infringe the '565 patent).

CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, the Court will deny Defendants' motion for summary judgment of literal infringement, grant summary judgment in favor of Pioneer *625 that its product does not literally infringe the '565 patent, and dismiss Defendants' motion for summary judgment that the '565 patent is not invalid as moot.
An Order consistent with this Opinion will be entered.
NOTES
[1]  The Court notes that how a person of ordinary skill in the art would understand a claim is, as the Phillips court stated, the basis upon which a court is to interpret claims. 415 F.3d at 1312-13 (recognizing that in interpreting claims, the "words of a claim `are generally given their ordinary and customary meaning,' [which] ... is the meaning that the [words] would have to a person of ordinary skill in the art in question."). Thus, it appears, to also ensure that a court does not read a limitation from the specification into a claim, but rather construes the claim in light of the specification, a court is to, similarly, "interpret the claims," i.e. "focus on how a person of ordinary skill in the art would understand the claim terms."
[2]  The Court notes that the phrase "configured to engage" is used twice in claim 1. ('565 Patent claim 1) ("a locking cap including a first portion configured to engage an interior surface of the head portion and a second portion having an elongated recess configured to engage an exterior surface of a spinal rod....") The Phillips court noted that in construing a claim, "the context in which a term is used ... can be highly instructive." 415 F.3d at 1314. For instance, the court explained, "[b]ecause terms are normally used consistently throughout the patent, the usage of a term in one claim can often illuminate the meaning of the same term in other claims." Id. In Process Control Corp. v. HydReclaim Corp., 190 F.3d 1350, 1356 (Fed.Cir.1999), the court interpreted the term "discharge rate," which was used twice in the same claim, to mean the same thing in both usages, because identical language, which illuminated the phrase's meaning, was associated with the phrase in both usages. In this case, the phrase "configured to engage" is not used in the same way: the first usage relates to the engagement between the upper portion of the locking cap and an interior surface of the head portion while the second usage relates to the engagement between the lower portion of the locking cap and the spinal rod. There is no indication from the words of the claims that they should be interpreted to refer to the same form of engagement. Moreover, in light of the specification, a person of ordinary skill would not interpret the phrase to refer to the same type of engagement in both instances.


788 So.2d 1092 (2001)
Edward S. ROBINSON, Appellant,
v.
Susan Rogers ROBINSON, Appellee.
No. 4D01-126.
District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.
June 20, 2001.
Rehearing Denied August 1, 2001.
*1093 Robert L. Bogen of Law Offices of Robert L. Bogen, Boca Raton, for appellant.
August La Rocco of Fixel & La Rocco, Hollywood, for appellee.
PER CURIAM.
Edward Robinson (Husband), timely appeals the trial court's order granting in part Susan Robinson's (Wife) motion for contempt, fees and costs filed in response to Husband's petition for modification and termination of alimony. We affirm in part and reverse in part.
The parties were married for one-and-one-half years and had no children. The parties entered into a marital settlement agreement ("the Agreement") which the trial court incorporated into the final divorce decree entered on December 18, 1989. The Agreement provided that the Husband would pay the sum of $3,800.00 per month to the Wife in periodic permanent alimony. The Agreement also provided that the Husband's alimony obligation would terminate upon: (1) the remarriage of the Wife; (2) the death of the husband; (3) the death of the Wife; or, (4) the Wife's cohabitation with another male defined as an unmarried union or relationship extending over a thirty-day period of time, although said thirty-day period may not be consecutive in nature.
Ten years after the final decree, the Husband unilaterally ceased making payments and filed a petition for modification and termination of alimony that alleged the Wife's cohabitation. In response the Wife filed a motion for contempt, fees and costs, alleging that the Husband could not unilaterally discharge his obligation absent a ruling from the court.
At a hearing on the motion, the Husband admitted that he had not paid alimony to the Wife for four months. Instead, the Husband had deposited the amount of the alimony payments with his attorney to be held pending the outcome of the action below. At the contempt hearing the Husband unsuccessfully argued that the Agreement specifically provided for the *1094 termination of the alimony obligation if the Wife cohabited with a man for thirty days or more, and since the Wife was cohabiting with a man the alimony portion of the Agreement could be automatically terminated.
In response, the Wife asserted that a modification hearing must precede the modification or termination of the alimony obligation; therefore, evidence of her cohabitation should not be introduced in the contempt action. The trial court agreed and, although the Husband was not held in contempt, the trial court did order the payment of all back alimony payments. We agree with the trial court on that issue.
At a hearing on a motion for contempt in support matters, a court is concerned with limited issues: (1) whether a prior order directing payment of support was entered, and (2) whether the alleged contemnor has failed to pay the support. See Fla. Fam. L.R.P. 12.615(c)(1). Here it is undisputed that the Husband has failed to pay the alimony obligation for four months. The Husband, relying upon Adams v. Adams, 423 So.2d 596, 598 n. 6 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982), contends that the Wife's cohabitation is an indisputable, objective occurrence that would automatically terminate the support obligation. We find the Husband's argument misplaced. In Adams the Third District addressed a similar unilateral termination of support by a former husband and held that the obligated spouse
may not cavalierly ... take the law into his own hands by making the determination that there is a legal reason to depart from the terms of the order. Only the court can make such a ruling, and it may do so only upon the filing of an appropriate pleading.
Id. at 598. Footnote six of this opinion, with which the Husband seeks to limit the above language, reads: "this principal does not apply when an indisputable, objective occurrence, such as a remarriage or reaching the age of majority, takes place." Id. at 598 n. 6. We do not find, as the Husband would have us do, that the Wife's cohabitation is an "indisputable, objective occurrence." Id. Therefore, given the limited issues the trial court must address in a contempt motion, it was proper to exclude the Husband's proffered evidence of cohabitation at the hearing.
The second issue raised by the Husband addresses the modification petition directly. The Husband asserts that the plain terms of the negotiated Agreement explicitly provide for termination of alimony upon the Wife's cohabitation with another male. Therefore, the trial court improperly interfered with the parties' agreement by requiring consideration of "financial impact" as a prerequisite to modification of alimony. We agree.
A trial court is without authority to alter the respective rights and obligations of the parties that become fixed by the terms of a final judgment of dissolution of marriage. See Altieri v. Altieri, 341 So.2d 525 (Fla. 1st DCA 1977). When the terms of alimony are determined by a property settlement agreement negotiated between the parties, and approved by the trial court, the provisions will be interpreted in accordance with contract principals. See Kenyon v. Kenyan, 496 So.2d 839 (Fla. 2d DCA 1986). Here, the parties negotiated a mutually agreeable settlement at the time of the divorce. The terms of the alimony clause are clear: alimony is to terminate in the event of the Wife's cohabitation with another male. The trial court approved this settlement and incorporated it by reference into the final judgment of dissolution of marriage. Because the language is clear, the only remaining question for the trial court, is whether the Wife's current living arrangement amounts to "cohabitation" under the Agreement.
*1095 The Wife urges us to adopt this Court's decision in DiBartolomeo v. DiBartolomeo, 679 So.2d 72 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996), as our guide in this case. The Wife asserts that DiBartolomeo stands for the proposition that "cohabitation alone cannot precipitate a termination of alimony without the factual finding of a change in circumstances." Id. at 73. We decline to read DiBartolomeo in such a way. In DiBartolomeo, the final judgment of dissolution of marriage awarded the former wife alimony subject to termination if "she... cohabits with a member of the opposite sex." Id. at 72. This clause was included in the judgment even though there was no mutually agreed upon settlement agreement. Id. at 73. This Court struck down the provision saying:

Absent a valid settlement agreement between the parties, a trial judge may not include a provision in a final judgment automatically terminating alimony upon the receiving spouse's cohabitation with another. To justify a post judgment modification, the focus should not be so much on the cohabitation as on how the living situation has impacted the former spouse's financial condition and need for continued support.
Id. (emphasis added). We find that DiBartolomeo must be limited to its facts and a finding of financial impact is not a prerequisite to a termination of alimony when the parties' negotiated settlement agreement contains mutually agreed to conditions under which the alimony obligation will terminate.
In sum, the trial court did not err in excluding evidence of the Wife's cohabitation at the contempt hearing. However, it was reversible error for the trial court to require the Husband to show that the Wife was financially impacted by the cohabitation before it would enforce the Agreement and terminate the Husband's alimony obligation. Accordingly, the case is remanded for the trial court to reconsider the Husband's petition for modification of alimony in accordance with this opinion.
AFFIRMED IN PART, REVERSED IN PART.
GUNTHER, GROSS and TAYLOR, JJ., concur.


537 U.S. 900
HAMMONDv.UNITED STATES.
No. 02-5192.
Supreme Court of United States.
October 7, 2002.

1
CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT.

2
C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 286 F. 3d 189.


132 B.R. 661 (1991)
In the Matter of James R. HORNE and Fredericka D. Horne, Debtors.
BANK SOUTH, N.A., Movant,
v.
James R. HORNE and Fredericka D. Horne, Debtors, and James H. Bone, Chapter 7 Trustee, Respondents.
Bankruptcy No. N91-00924-WHD.
United States Bankruptcy Court, N.D. Georgia, Newnan Division.
October 10, 1991.
As Clarified October 29, 1991.
Neil C. Gordon, Havely M. Allgood, Macey, Wilensky, Cohen, Wittner & Kessler, Atlanta, Ga., for Bank South, N.A.
John G. McCullough, Gregson T. Haan, Atlanta, Ga., for General Motors Acceptance Corp.
Richard E. Reiter, Jr., The Brantley Group, Fayetteville, Ga., for debtors.

ORDER
W. HOMER DRAKE, Jr., Bankruptcy Judge.
This matter is before the Court on the Motion for Relief From Stay, filed by Bank South, N.A. ("Bank South") on June 12, 1991, against James R. Horne and Fredericka D. Horne ("Debtors"). A hearing was *662 held on July 19, 1991, at which time the parties were ordered to submit written briefs. Additionally, an amicus curiae brief was filed by General Motors Acceptance Corporation (GMAC). This Court has jurisdiction over the matter pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2). The following constitutes the Court's Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law.

FINDINGS OF FACT
On April 1, 1991, Debtors filed a Chapter 7 petition in this Court. Bank South is a creditor of Debtors, holding a consumer note secured by an interest in Debtors' automobile. The parties have stipulated that the installment note payments are current and not in default. Debtors have also filed a Statement of Intention, as required by 11 U.S.C. § 521(2)(A), stating that the automobile was to be retained by Debtors, but not specifying whether Debtors intended to reaffirm the debt to Bank South, redeem the property, or claim the property as exempt. Shortly after the first meeting of creditors, Bank South requested that Debtors reaffirm their debt. Debtors' counsel rejected the request, stating that since Debtors were current on their installments under the note, they would not reaffirm the debt. However, a short time later, Debtors did offer to reaffirm the debt for an amount representing the fair market value of the automobile, which was less than the amount owed on the debt, with such amount being paid in installments over a thirty-one month period. This offer was rejected by Bank South. On June 12, 1991, Bank South filed the Motion for Relief from Stay now before the Court. Thereafter, on June 17, 1991, the Chapter 7 Trustee abandoned the automobile from the estate. As of that time, Debtors had still not stated their intention to either reaffirm the debt or redeem the property.
The first issue to be decided is whether the provisions of 11 U.S.C. § 521(2)(A), concerning the intention of the debtor as to secured property, are mandatory, requiring Debtors to either redeem the property or reaffirm the debt if they wish to retain the property.[1] Debtors argue that since they are current in their obligation, Bank South's secured status is not impaired, and in the event they did default, Bank South would still retain the right to repossess the automobile. Therefore, Debtors argue that they should have the additional option, in lieu of reaffirmation or redemption, of continuing making payments on the contract as if the bankruptcy never occurred. Conversely, Bank South argues that § 521(2)(A) is clear on its face, and mandates that Debtors must either redeem the property or reaffirm the debt if they elect to retain the property. GMAC, in its amicus curiae brief, also takes this position and argues that allowing Debtors to keep the property, while extinguishing their personal liability through a chapter 7 discharge, would deprive creditors of their basic contractual protections, and would amount to a forced reorganization of the contract, which is not contemplated under chapter 7. Thus, Bank South and GMAC argue that the automatic stay should be lifted, and foreclosure allowed.
The second issue to be addressed is whether redemption pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 722 may be made in installments, or whether it must be made in one lump sum payment. Debtors argue that the statute is silent on the method of payment, and thus periodic installment payments should be allowed. In contrast, Bank South and GMAC argue that a single, lump-sum payment is the only type of redemption contemplated by the Code, and that the weight of the case law supports such a position.

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
There is a split of authority as to the interpretation of 11 U.S.C. § 521(2)(A).[2]*663 The leading case espousing the view that a debtor, if he wishes to retain the property, is limited to either reaffirming the debt or redeeming the property is In re Edwards, 901 F.2d 1383 (7th Cir.1990). That case involved almost identical facts and issues as the case now before the Court, with the Seventh Circuit holding that the debtor had to choose one of the options listed in § 521(2)(A) if he wished to retain the property. Id. at 1386. The Edwards court held that the clear language of the statute requires that the debtor choose one of the listed options. Id. Moreover, the court stated, allowing the debtor to retain secured property without reaffirming the debt or redeeming the property, and with no personal liability, has the effect of forcing a new arrangement on the creditor, which is contrary to the voluntary nature of reaffirmation contemplated by the statute. Id. Additionally, since the debtor would be relieved of personal liability, he would have no incentive to maintain the value of the property. Id. Therefore, the court held that the debtor had to specify one of the alternatives listed in § 521(2)(A). Id.; accord In re Bell, 700 F.2d 1053 (6th Cir.1983); In re Goldsby, Case No. 188-00215, slip op. (Bankr.M.D.Ga. March 2, 1989). Bank South and GMAC argue that this Court should adopt the conclusion of the Seventh Circuit, and require Debtors to either reaffirm the debt or redeem the property.
Conversely, many courts have refused to limit the debtor to the choices listed in § 521(2)(A). The Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals has held that a debtor may retain secured property without making an election under § 521(2)(A) as long as the debtor is not otherwise in default, and no independent grounds exist for allowing repossession. Lowry Federal Credit Union v. West, 882 F.2d 1543 (10th Cir.1989). On facts similar to Edwards, the court held that while the requirements of § 521(2)(A) are mandatory, redemption and reaffirmation are not the exclusive methods under which a bankruptcy court may allow a debtor to keep secured property. Id. at 1547; see also In re McNeil, 128 B.R. 603 (Bankr.E.D.Pa.1991); In re Hunter, 121 B.R. 609 (Bankr.N.D.Ala.1990). The Tenth Circuit stated that where there has been no default, the debtor could retain the property without reaffirming or redeeming, and the failure to make such an election did not give the creditor an automatic right to repossess the collateral. Lowry, 882 F.2d at 1545; see also Hunter, 121 B.R. at 613; In re Donley, 131 B.R. 193 (Bankr.N.D.Fla. 1991); In re Berenguer, 77 B.R. 959 (Bankr.S.D.Fla.1987). Debtors urge the Court to adopt this line of cases and allow them to retain the property without making an election under § 521(2)(A), as long as they remain current in the contractual obligations.
This Court thinks that the better view, and one that is consistent with the wording of the statute, is that Debtors, if they intend on retaining the property, must choose one of the alternatives set forth in § 521(2)(A). Section 521(2)(A) clearly mandates that the debtor choose one of the options stated in the statute ("the debtor shall . . .") (emphasis added), and perform the intention within a specified period of time ("the debtor shall perform his intention . . .") (emphasis added). 901 F.2d at 1386; Bell, 700 F.2d at 1058. If Debtors intend on remaining current in their obligations under the contract, they may negotiate a reaffirmation agreement with the creditor. Allowing retention of the property *664 without reaffirmation or redemption would be tantamount to forcing the creditor into a de facto reaffirmation agreement with no recourse against the debtor. In re Hart, 5 B.R. 524, 525 (Bankr.N.D.Ga.1980). Furthermore, the debtors would have no incentive to keep the property in good condition or to continue making payments if the value of the collateral declined below the amount of the debt or was destroyed. Id. at 525. Such an arrangement is contrary to the language of the Code. Therefore, the Court holds that Debtors must either reaffirm the debt or redeem the property, as specified in § 521(2)(A), if they wish to retain the property.
The second issue before the Court is whether a redemption of the secured property pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 722 may be made by installment payments, or whether it must be made in a lump sum. The language of the statute is silent as to the method of payment. However, the Court agrees with the reasoning set forth by the court in In re Harp, 76 B.R. 185, 186-87 (Bankr.N.D.Fla.1987), when it concluded that the Congressional intent was that the creditor be paid in one lump sum rather than installments. If the debtor desires to pay the debt in installments, he may renegotiate with the creditor, or pursue a conversion to Chapter 13. Id.; Bell, 700 F.2d at 1056-57. If Debtors were allowed to pay in installments, they would have no reason to reaffirm, since they could, in effect, accomplish the same end with lower payments by redemption. Bell, 700 F.2d at 1056. Thus, if Debtors wish to redeem the property, they must do so in a single lumpsum payment.
Accordingly, there being no reason at this time to allow Bank South to repossess the property, the Motion of Bank South for Relief from the Automatic Stay is DENIED. It having appeared that a discharge has been entered for Debtors, they shall have twenty days from the entry of this Order to state and perform their intention as to the subject property. If they fail to do so, Bank South may at that time seek repossession of the property.
The Clerk's Office is directed to serve copies of this Order on counsel for the parties and General Motors Acceptance Corporation.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
NOTES
[1]  The record does not indicate that the property was, or could be claimed as exempt, so the Court will assume that this option is not available.
[2]  11 U.S.C. § 521 states, in pertinent part: The debtor shall

. . . .
(2) if an individual debtor's schedule of assets and liabilities includes consumer debts which are secured by property of the estate
(A) within thirty days after the date of the filing of a petition under chapter 7 of this title [11 USC §§ 701 et seq.] or on or before the date of the meeting of creditors, whichever is earlier, or within such additional time as the court, for cause, within such period fixes, the debtor shall file with the clerk a statement of his intention with respect to the retention or surrender of such property and, if applicable, specifying that such property is claimed as exempt, that the debtor intends to redeem such property, or that the debtor intends to reaffirm debts secured by such property;
(B) within forty-five days after the filing of a notice of intent under this section, or within such additional time as the court, for cause, within such forty-five day period fixes, the debtor shall perform his intention with respect to such property, as specified in subparagraph (A) of this paragraph;
. . . .


599 So.2d 816 (1992)
Benjamin MATHERNE and Gertrude Champagne Matherne
v.
STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY, Larry L. Robertson, Mike Jambon, Jude J. Guidry and Robert Arabie.
No. CA 90 1210.
Court of Appeal of Louisiana, First Circuit.
March 23, 1992.
Writ Denied June 19, 1992.
Ashley Bruce Simpson, Lockport, for plaintiffs-appellants Benjamin Matherne and Gertrude Champagne Matherne.
Jerry H. Schwab, Schwab & Butler, Houma, for defendants-appellees State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., Larry L. Robertson, Jude J. Guidry and Robert Arabie.
Before LOTTINGER, EDWARDS, CARTER, FOIL and GONZALES, JJ.
GONZALES, Judge.
This lawsuit arose following an automobile accident. Plaintiffs originally sued the tortfeasor, Robert Arabie (whose fault was stipulated) and his insurer, State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company ("State Farm"), a State Farm claims adjuster, Larry L. Robertson, and two State Farm insurance agents, Mike Jambon and Jude Guidry. State Farm was also sued in its capacity as plaintiffs' uninsured motorist carrier. Mike Jambon was dismissed on *817 plaintiffs' motion, without prejudice. Trial was had on the issue of liability alone. Thereafter, the trial court sustained an exception pleading the objection of res judicata as to Robert Arabie and State Farm (in its capacity as Arabie's insurer). The exception pleading the objection of prescription filed by the remaining defendants was sustained and plaintiffs' petition was dismissed. Plaintiffs have appealed.
We reverse in part, finding merit in Mrs. Matherne's argument of contra non valentem.[1]

FACTS
Mrs. Gertrude Matherne was injured on August 17, 1986, when she was involved in an automobile accident with Robert Arabie, whose fault was stipulated. Both Mrs. Matherne's automobile and that of Mr. Arabie were insured with State Farm.[2] The accident was reported immediately to each party's respective insurance agent.
On August 21, 1986, Larry Robertson, the State Farm claims adjuster for that area contacted Mrs. Matherne. Mr. Robertson testified in court that he informed Mrs. Matherne that State Farm accepted liability and assured her reimbursement for damages to her car, medical bills, lost income, and a settlement for inconvenience, pain and suffering would be forthcoming. Specifically, Mr. Robertson testified:
[W]hen I contacted them, my initial procedure is to tell them who I am. That we accepted liability and we know they have damage to their vehicle and we will take care of the damage to their vehicle. If they need a rental car, they can get a rental car. I'll help them get a rental car while their vehicle is in the shop being repaired. I let them know that we will pay for any medical bills. If she's employed, we'll pay for any lost income. That eventually we will make a settlement with them for the inconvenience, pain and suffering she's gone through. I try to let them know exactly what we will do because a lot of people [have] never been involved in an automobile accident and have no idea what they're supposed to do to collect their damages. And some people are hesitant about asking for money for their car. So I try to let them know right off exactly what we will do.
On August 22, 1986, State Farm paid the Mathernes for the damages to their car in the amount of $1,124.46. Additionally, reimbursement for a $60 bowling ball damaged in the accident was made. On October 22, 1986, State Farm paid $105.10 to plaintiffs for a car rental. A settlement for bodily injury was offered in October in the amount of $300, and rejected by plaintiffs. In February of 1987, plaintiffs signed a settlement agreement releasing Mr. Arabie and State Farm as his insurer for $800.00 plus an "open end" provision for medical bills up to $5,000.00.
State Farm paid Mrs. Matherne's medical bills under Mr. Arabie's insurance policy through July 1987, at which time the $5,000.00 available under the settlement agreement had been exhausted. Mr. Robertson testified that he told the Mathernes when the $5,000.00 was used up, that they did have medical payment coverage on their own policy out of which State Farm would pay any other bills. Mr. Robertson testified that he "wanted to assure them [the Mathernes] that we'd still pay their medical bills." State Farm continued to pay Mrs. Matherne's medical bills and on May 24, 1988, Mr. Robertson noted in his file: "Claimant getting me P & S [physician's and surgeon's] report. Claimant may make "U" [uninsured motorist] claim under own policy. Claimant still having back problems." Mr. Robertson's file had the following notation on June 21, 1988:
We have P & S report from doctor on Gertrude Matherne. He said that she had cervical strain and ruptured disc as a result of the accident of August 17th, *818 1986. The claimant's [sic] still seeing doctor. We settled under Robert Arabie's liability policy for $800 and then paid $5,000 under his policy on an open end release. Claimant had disc surgery, anterior cervical fusion of the L5-6, C6-7 in April of 1987. Since we paid out the $5,000 under the open ended release, we have paid medical bills under Mr. Matherne's medical pay coverage policy of $25,000 limit. So far $5,000 is paid under the open ended release and $5,043.70 under Mrs. Matherne's medical coverage. I spoke to Mrs. Matherne a few days ago and asked her if she was making an uninsured motorist claim. She did not know what I was talking about. I explained the "U" coverage, uninsured motorist claim, to her and she said she would discuss it with her husband and let me know. She herself didn't know if they were making a "U" claim or not. This was by phone. Total medically paid out $10,043.70.
Mr. Robertson testified that at the time he last spoke with Mrs. Matherne, he believed that State Farm was liable to the Mathernes for the uninsured motorist coverage. In obtaining the medical reports for his files, Mr. Robertson testified that he was preparing for settlement discussions on any UM claim the Matherne's might have. Mr. Robertson stated, "if they wanted to make a claim, you know, we had no objections at all ... [if] prescription hadn't run, we could have settled with them."
Sometime in the summer of 1988, Jude Guidry, the Matherne's insurance agent was told by Mr. Matherne he was interested in making an uninsured motorist claim; Mr. Guidry passed this information along to Mr. Robertson. Several weeks later, Mr. Matherne approached Mr. Guidry again with this information, and Mr. Guidry notified Gary Suer, Mr. Robertson's superintendent. Gary Suer testified that he spoke to Mr. Matherne at Jude Guidry's request, in June or July of 1988. Mr. Suer testified that regarding his claim, Mr. Matherne wanted something in writing to guarantee that State Farm would make his wife's back and neck pain free. Mr. Suer further testified that when he asked Mr. Matherne whether he intended to make a UM claim, Mr. Matherne stated that he felt State Farm had been more than fair to him and he did not want to collect any more from them. Mr. Suer warned him that in the event he wanted to make such a claim, it would prescribe soon. Shortly after August 17, 1988, Mr. Matherne called Mr. Suer again, and requested approximately $75,000.00 in settlement of their UM claims. After verifying that no suit had been filed, Mr. Suer sent a letter, in October of 1988, denying coverage on the basis of prescription.

SUSPENSION OF PRESCRIPTION
Although prescription for an uninsured motorist claim runs in two years under La.R.S. 9:5629, prescription may be suspended under the doctrine of contra non valentem. See In re Medical Review Panel of Howard, 573 So.2d 472 (La. 1991). Plaintiffs argue that under the doctrine of contra non valentem prescription was suspended because of the representations made by State Farm which prevented them from bringing suit.
Contra non valentem is a jurisprudentially created exception to Civil Code article 3467 stating that "[p]rescription runs against all persons unless exception is established by legislation." See Corsey v. Louisiana Department of Corrections, 375 So.2d 1319 (La.1979). The Louisiana Supreme Court has recognized four categories of situations in which the doctrine of contra non valentem can be applied: (1) where there was some legal cause which prevented the courts or their officers from taking cognizance of or acting on the plaintiff's action; (2) where there was some condition coupled with the contract or connected with the proceedings which prevented the creditor from suing or acting; (3) where the debtor himself has done some act effectually to prevent the creditor from availing himself of his cause of action; and (4) where the cause of action is not known or reasonably knowable by the plaintiff even though his ignorance is not induced by the defendant. Plaquemines Parish *819 Commission Council v. Delta Development Company, 502 So.2d 1034 (La.1987); Gover v. Bridges, 497 So.2d 1364 (La.1986); Corsey, 375 So.2d at 1321. The third category as enumerated in Corsey encompasses "an innocent plaintiff being lulled into a course of inaction in the enforcement of his right by reason of some concealment or fraudulent conduct on the part of the defendant, or because of his failure to perform some legal duty whereby plaintiff has been kept in ignorance of his rights." See Dagenhart v. Robertson Truck Lines, Inc., 230 So.2d 916 (La.App. 1st Cir.1970) (cited with approval in Corsey, 375 So.2d at 1322, n. 8). See also Reed v. General Motors Corporation, 400 So.2d 919 (La.App. 1st Cir.), writ denied, 406 So.2d 625 (La.1981); Brown v. State Department of Corrections, 354 So.2d 633 (La.App. 1st Cir.1977).
The testimony of defendant's employee, Mr. Robertson, was undisputed; he testified Mrs. Matherne was assured that she would be compensated for her pain and suffering. We believe the trial court came to an erroneous legal conclusion given the facts presented herein. The representations of the State Farm adjuster were sufficient to constitute "lulling" as contemplated under the contra non valentem jurisprudence. See Nathan v. Carter, 372 So.2d 560 (La.1979). We find no merit to Mr. Matherne's argument of contra non valentem regarding his claim for loss of consortium; no representations were made by State Farm to Mr. Matherne regarding payment of loss of consortium damages.
When contra non valentem is applicable, the running of prescription is suspended until the plaintiff discovers or should have discovered the facts upon which his or her cause of action is based. In re Medical Review Panel of Howard, 573 So.2d at 474; Lott v. Haley, 370 So.2d 521 (La.1979). When plaintiff has been lulled into inaction by a defendant's misrepresentation, prescription is suspended until plaintiff is made aware of the truth of the matter. See In re Medical Review Panel of Howard, 573 So.2d at 475.
Mrs. Matherne was informed on August 21, 1986, that all of her damages would be paid by State Farm. It was not until October of 1988 that she discovered State Farm would not honor all of her claims. Thus, contra non valentem applies to suspend prescription during that time period. Consequently, Mrs. Matherne's suit filed on November 14, 1988, was timely.
For the reasons given herein, the judgment of the trial court sustaining the exception pleading the objection of prescription is reversed as to Mrs. Matherne and affirmed as to Mr. Matherne, and, the case is remanded for further proceedings consistent with the foregoing. All costs of this appeal are to be borne by appellees herein.
AFFIRMED IN PART, REVERSED IN PART AND REMANDED.
LOTTINGER, J., concurs in part, dissents in part and assigns written reasons.
FOIL, J., concurs in part and dissents in part for the reasons assigned by LOTTINGER, J.
LOTTINGER, Judge, concurring and dissenting.
I concur in the affirmation of the dismissal of Mr. Matherne's claim and respectfully dissent in the reversal of the dismissal of Mrs. Matherne's claim.
In reversing the judgment of the trial court, the majority has concluded that Mrs. Matherne was lulled into a course of inaction based on the facts presented.
The trial court found as fact that certain information was given to Mrs. Matherne concerning U.M. coverage and that based on all the facts "the defendants did not lull the Mathernes into a state of inaction." In support of its reversal, the majority cites Nathan v. Carter, 372 So.2d 560 (La.1979), a case wherein "defendants threatened Mrs. Nathan with termination of her compensation benefits if she ever contacted an attorney." Id. at 563. Facts of such extreme are not present in the case sub judice, nor does the majority attempt to show where the trial judge was manifestly *820 erroneous or clearly wrong in his factual findings.
Therefore, I would affirm the trial court based on its excellent reasons for judgment.
NOTES
[1]  We pretermit plaintiffs' other assignments of error.
[2]  Mr. Arabie's policy had liability limits of $50,000.00. The Matherne policy had a medical payment provision with $25,000.00 in coverage and uninsured motorist coverage of $100,000.00.