Appeal No. 2002-2106
Application 09/313,359
customary meaning is rebutted” (citation omitted). “Indeed, the
intrinsic record may show that the specification uses the words
in a manner clearly inconsistent with the ordinary meaning
reflected, for example, in a dictionary definition. In such a
case, the inconsistent dictionary definition must be rejected.”
Tex. Digital Sys., 308 F.3d at 1204, 64 USPQ2d at 1819 (“[A]
common meaning, such as one expressed in a relevant dictionary,
that flies in the face of the patent disclosure is undeserving of
fealty.”) Id. (citing Liebscher v. Boothroyd, 258 F.2d 948, 951,
119 USPQ 133, 135 (CCPA 1958)(“Indiscriminate reliance on defini-
tions found in dictionaries can often produce absurd results.”)).
“In short, the presumption in favor of a dictionary definition
will be overcome where the patentee, acting as his or her own
lexicographer, has clearly set forth an explicit definition of
the term different from its ordinary meaning.” Id. “Further,
the presumption also will be rebutted if the inventor has
disavowed or disclaimed scope of coverage, by using words or
expressions of manifest exclusion or restriction, representing
a clear disavowal of claim scope.” Id.
9
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007