Appeal No. 2003-0494
Application No. 09/176,012
Laboratories Inc. 12 USPQ2d 1474, 1476 (Fed. Cir. 1989)). “[T]he terms used in the
claims bear a “heavy presumption” that they mean what they say and have the ordinary
meaning that would be attributed to those words by persons skilled in the relevant art.”
Texas Digital Sys, Inc. v. Telegenix, Inc., 308 F.3d 1193, 1202, 64 USPQ2d 1812,
1817 (Fed. Cir. 2002). “Moreover, the intrinsic record also must be examined in every
case to determine whether the presumption of ordinary and 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.” Texas Digital Systems, Inc. v. Telegenix, Inc.,
308 F.3d at 1204, 64 USPQ2d at 1819.
Claim 15 includes the limitation of a “query profile, having an associated brief
command and at least one information requirement”. Appellants argue on page 11 of
the brief that the implication of claim15 is that the information is independent of the
information requirement and cite examples in the originally filed specification to support
this implication. We do not find another limitation in claim 15 that further defines the
information requirement or its function. Also, we do not find a limitation in claim 15 that
either defines or differentiates information from information requirement. Accordingly,
we do not find that claim 15 contains the implication that the information is independent
of the information requirement, as argued by the appellants.
-7–
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007