Appeal No. 1998-1781
Application No. 08/549,828
in a plane anywhere in appellant’s specification. Appellant has
provided no evidence to support the assertion on page 3 of the
request that “one of ordinary skill would interpret the plane of
rotation of the wheel in claim 25 as the central plane” and we1
are not aware that "rotate in a plane" is a term of art which
refers to the central plane of a rotating wheel or roller. In
fact, we find it equally likely, if not more likely, that one
skilled in the art would consider the face of a rotating wheel
or roller to be the plane in which it rotates. An applicant can
be his own lexicographer provided the applicant's definition, to
the extent it differs from the conventional definition, is
clearly set forth in the specification. Beachcombers Int’l,
Inc. v. WildeWood Creative Prods., Inc., 31 F.3d 1154, 1158, 31
USPQ2d 1653, 1656 (Fed. Cir. 1994). As appellant has not
clearly set forth a definition of the plane of rotation of the
wheel, our treatment of the claim language “disposed to rotate
in a plane spaced laterally of said common horizontal axis” on
page 7 of our decision is not unreasonable. While such an
interpretation is broad, it would not “make the claim
Attorney's arguments in a brief cannot take the place of evidence. In1
re Pearson, 494 F.2d 1399, 1405, 181 USPQ 641, 646 (CCPA 1974).
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007