symmetry” is the same as the “longitudinal median plane” of
Bourdeau claim 27 (the count). Rather, Bourdeau argues that
the second definition of the “plane of approximate symmetry”
will be consistent with the first definition where the widths
of the front and rear portions of each of a pair of boots are
the same, as allegedly shown in Okajima’s figures. Okajima’s
claims 18-20 should be interpreted such that the widths of the
front and rear of a boot are the same, Bourdeau argues, in
order for the term “plane of approximate symmetry” to be given
the same meaning throughout all of Okajima’s claims as
required by law, citing to Georgia-Pacific Corp. v. United
States Gypsum Co., 195 F.3d 1322, 1331, 52 USPQ2d 1590, 1598
(Fed,. Cir. 1999); Southwall Technologies, Inc. v. Cardinal IG
Co., 54 F.3d 1570, 1579, 34 USPQ2d 1673, 1679 (Fed. Cir.
1995); Fonar Corp. v. Johnson & Johnson, 821 F.2d 627, 632, 3
USPQ2d 1109, 1113 (Fed. Cir. 1987), cert, denied, 484 U.S.
1027 (1988). (Paper 49 at 7-9).
Bourdeau’s arguments are not persuasive. First, while we
agree that generally a claim term cannot be given a different
meaning in the various claims of the same patent, there are
exceptions to this rule of law. In none of the cited cases
are the facts similar to those before us. Here, there are two
definitions for a given term. Here, one definition applies to
- 11 -
Page: Previous 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007