claims reciting a single boot and the other definition applies
to claims reciting a pair of boots.
In Georgia-Pacific, the Federal Circuit held that it was
an error to interpret a claim term to have one meaning with
respect to one set of claims and a different meaning with
respect to another set of claims. The Federal Circuit held
that a claim term cannot be given a different meaning in the
various claims of the same patent “absent any indication that
a different meaning was contemplated.” 195 F.3d at 1331, 52
USPQ2d at 1598. In Georgia-Pacific, the disputed term was not
defined in the specification. Here, the disputed term is not
only defined in Okajima’s specification, but defined in two
ways, indicating that different meanings had been contemplated
depending on the context on which the term is used.
In Southwall, the issue was whether the remarks made as
part of the prosecution history applied to all of the claims
with the disputed term, even though a particular claim was not
mentioned during prosecution history. The Federal Circuit
held that “arguments made during prosecution regarding the
meaning of a claim term are relevant to the interpretation of
that term in every claim of the patent absent a clear
indication to the contrary.” 54 F.3d at 1579, 34 USPQ2d at
1679. In Southwall, the Federal Circuit found that the
- 12 -
Page: Previous 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007