prosecution history discussing the disputed term was
applicable for determining the meaning of the term in all of
the claims. In Southwall, there was not, as there is here,
two definitions in the specification for the disputed term.
Unlike in Southwall, here the prosecution history tends to
show that the “plane of approximate symmetry” has a different
meaning for Okajima’s claims 18-20. Note Okajima’s argument
that the term “plane of approximate symmetry” has a different
meaning for its claims 18-20. (Paper 55 at 3-5).
Likewise, in Fonar Corp., the disputed term did not have
more than one definition in the specification. Nor was there
prosecution history tending to show that the disputed term
should be interpreted inconsistently from other claims using
the same term, as there is here. Thus, the facts before us
are distinguishable from the facts in the above cited cases.
Bourdeau asserts that Okajima’s Figs. 1-7, 10 and 12 show
boots where the “plane of approximate symmetry” is the same as
the longitudinal plane. (Paper 49 at 8). But only Fig. 10 of
Figs. 1-7, 10 and 12 shows a pair of boots . The rest of 3
Okajima’s figures show a single boot. The figures showing a
single boot are consistent with the first Okajima definition
3Okajima Fig. 11 is the only other figure that shows a
pair of boots. There, the plane of approximate symmetry is
not illustrated.
- 13 -
Page: Previous 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007