Appeal No. 2001-0338
Application No. 08/932,953
Appellants' claim 5 because Tonosaki only teaches turning off the
power to the display, and not to vary its intensity. See pages 6
and 7 of Appellants' brief.
In response, the Examiner argues that Tonosaki does teach a
controller (10) for varying the intensity level of the display.
The Examiner points us to column 7, lines 1-17 of Tonosaki.
As pointed out by our reviewing court, we must first
determine the scope of the claim. "[T]he name of the game is the
claim." In re Hiniker Co., 150 F.3d 1362, 1369, 47 USPQ2d 1523,
1529 (Fed. Cir. 1998). "[T]he terms used in the claims bear a
"heavy presumption" that they mean what they say and have the
ordinary meaning that would be attributed to those words by
persons skilled in the relevant art." Texas Digital Systems,
Inc. v. Telegenix, Inc., 308 F.3d 1193, 1201-02, 64 USPQ2d 1812,
1818 (Fed. Cir. 2002). "Moreover, the intrinsic record also must
be examined in every case to determine whether the presumption of
ordinary and customary meaning is rebutted." (citation omitted).
"Indeed, the intrinsic record may show that the specification
uses the words in a manner clearly inconsistent with the ordinary
meaning reflected, for example, in a dictionary definition. In
such a case, the inconsistent dictionary definition must be
rejected." Texas Digital Systems, Inc. v. Telegenix, Inc.,
77
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007