Appeal No. 1997-0334
Application 08/211,698
meaning appellants intended to convey by use of the claim
terminology. There is scant little other guidance in the
original disclosure concerning the meaning of the claim
terminology.
Accordingly, while appellants declare that it is, thus,
clear from the specification that polymerization resins could
not include condensation resins, this is considered to be mere
attorney argument unsupported by any evidence of record.
While it is understood that an applicant for patent may be his
own lexicographer, an applicant for patent may only be his own
lexicographer where the definition applicant intends for a
particular claim term, especially when that definition is
different from the conventional, art-recognized definition, is
clearly set forth in applicant's specification. Beachcombers,
Int’l. v. WildWoode Creative Products, Inc., 31 F.3d 1154,
1156, 31 USPQ2d 1653, 1656 (Fed. Cir. 1994); ZMI Corp. v.
Cardiac Resuscitator Corp., 844 F.2d 1576, 1579, 6 USPQ2d
1557, 1560 (Fed. Cir. 1988); Envirotech Corp. v. Al George,
Inc., 730 F.2d 753, 759, 221 USPQ 473, 477 (Fed. Cir. 1984).
More importantly, we agree with the examiner's position
that the broadest, reasonable interpretation of the claim term
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007