Appeal No. 1997-2184
Application 08/278,441
USPQ 642, 646 (CCPA 1970), the proper approach to take when
claims are found to be of a scope such that they do not
distinguish from the prior art is to reject such claims on
prior art not reject them under the second paragraph of the
statute.
It is also generally understood that an applicant for
patent may be his own lexicographer so long as an applicant
for patent clearly sets forth in applicant's specification the
definition applicant intends for a particular claim term, even
when that definition is different from the conventional, art-
recognized definition. Beachcombers, Int. v. WildeWood
Creative Products, Inc. 31 F.3d 1154, 1158, 31 USPQ2d 1653,
1656 (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). As we have concluded
above, appellants have certainly set forth the meaning they
intend for their claim language.
For all the above reasons, the rejection under 35 U.S.C.
§ 112, second paragraph is reversed.
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007