Appeal No. 2006-0450 Παγε 6
Application No. 10/044,141
accustomed meaning." Johnson Worldwide Assocs., Inc. v. Zebco Corp., 175 F.3d 985,
989, 50 USPQ2d 1607, 1610 (Fed. Cir. 1999) (citing Renishaw PLC v. Marposs Societa’
Per Azioni, 158 F.3d 1243, 1249, 48 USPQ2d 1117, 1121 (Fed. Cir. 1998); York Prods.,
Inc. v. Central Tractor Farm & Family Ctr., 99 F.3d 1568, 1572, 40 USPQ2d 1619, 1622
(Fed. Cir. 1996)). "It is well settled that dictionaries provide evidence of a claim term's
'ordinary meaning.'" Inverness Med. Switz. GmbH v. Warner Lambert Co., 309 F.3d
1365, 1369, 64 USPQ2d 1926, 1930 (Fed. Cir. 2002).
From our review of McGraw-Hill Dictionary of Scientific and
Technical Terms, Fifth Edition, ©1994, we find no definition for
the term “opposed.” Turning to a non-technical dictionary, we
find from Webster’s Third New International Dictionary, ©19931,
that “opposed” means opposite. However, we do not find that
opposed requires that the surfaces be directly opposed. Claim
16, which depends from claim 1, recites “wherein each of the
leads further defines a fourth surface disposed in opposite
relation to the third surface and laterally offset outwardly
relative to the second surface.” From the language of claim 16,
we find that the claim is directed to the embodiment of figure 2,
where the third surface, while opposed to the second surface, is
not directly opposed to the second surface, as in the embodiment
1 A copy of the pertinent page is enclosed with our Decision.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007