Appeal No. 1997-1536
Application 08/342,817
in claim 5.
Although appellants have argued that what is encompassed
by claim 5 would have been understood by a person of ordinary
skill in the art based on "self-consistent rules", appellants
have neither directed us to where in their disclosure these
rules are set forth nor the evidence which forms the basis of
their argument. While it is understood that an applicant for
patent may be his own lexicographer, an applicant for patent
may only be his own lexicographer where the definition
applicant intends for a particular claim term, especially when
that definition is different from the conventional, art-
recognized definition, is clearly set forth in applicant's
specification. Beachcombers, Int'l Inc. v. WildeWood Creative
Products, Inc. 31 F.3d 1154, 1158, 31 USPQ2d 1653 (Fed. Cir.
1994); ZMI Corp. v. Cardiac Resuscitator corp., 844 F.2d 1576,
1579, 6 USPQ2d 1557, 1560 (Fed. Cir. 1988); Envirotech Corp.
v. Al George, Inc., 730 F.2d 753, 759, 221 USPQ 473, 477 (Fed.
Cir. 1984). On this record, appellants have failed to
adequately and clearly define what they intend by the
terminology "a formal oxidation number less than 0."
12
Page: Previous 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007