Appeal No. 1996-2112
Application 08/210,217
technical terms in a claim are given their ordinary meaning as would have been given by
those of ordinary skill in the art unless it is apparent from the specification and/or the
prosecution history that the inventor used the term with a different meaning. Intellical, Inc.
v. Phonometrics, Inc., 952 F.2d 1384, 1387,
21 USPQ2d 1383, 1386 (Fed. Cir. 1992); Phillips Petroleum Co. v. Huntsman
Polymers Corp. , 157 F.3d 866, 871, 48 USPQ2d 1161, 1165 (Fed. Cir.1998); Hoechst
Celanese Corp. v. BP Chem. Ltd., 78 F.3d 1575, 1578, 38 USPQ2d 1126, 1129 (Fed.
Cir. 1996). Thus, an applicant can be his own lexicographer and define unfamiliar terms in
the specification. Locite Corp. v. Ultraseal Ltd., 781 F.2d 861, 867, 228 USPQ 90, 93
(Fed. Cir. 1985); Autogiro Co. of America v. United States, 384 F.2d 391, 397, 155
USPQ 697, 702 (CT. Cl. 1967). Here, the examiner has not provided any additional
evidence, such as a dictionary definition, to establish the ordinary meaning of the term
“statistical.” Thus, to ascertain the meaning of the disputed term in this case, we must turn
to the specification for guidance. In so doing, we find that the appellants have provided a
definition of “statistical interlinking.” That is, the appellants point to p. 6, lines 8-10 of the
specification which states () “. . . copolymer (C) used in the present invention is of the type
utilizing statistical interlinking which means that it contains one styrene block and one
styrene-butadiene block in a statistical distribution. Generally, the styrene block represents
about 70% of the total styrene.” Thus, since the specification provides a definition of
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007