Appeal No. 2001-2269
Application No. 08/680,266
flies in the face of the patent disclosure is undeserving of
fealty."); Tex. Digital Sys., Inc. 308 F.3d at 1204, 64 USPQ2d at
1819 (citing Liebscher v. Boothroyd, 258 F.2d 948, 951, 119 USPQ
133, 135 (CCPA 1958). ("Indiscriminate reliance on definitions
found in dictionaries can often produce absurd results."). "In
short, the presumption in favor of a dictionary definition will
be overcome where the patentee, acting as his or her own
lexicographer, has clearly set forth an explicit definition of
the term different from its ordinary meaning." Id. at 1204,
64 USPQ2d at 1819. "Further, the presumption also will be
rebutted if the inventor has disavowed or disclaimed scope of
coverage, by using words or expressions of manifest exclusion or
restriction, representing a clear disavowal of claim scope." Id.
at 1204, 64 USPQ2d at 1819.
Upon our review of the Appellant's references to the
definition provided in the specification, we find that the
Examiner has not interpreted the claimed terms properly. In
particular, we find that the term "object" is directed to object
oriented characteristics of a distributed object system.
Furthermore, we find that the Examiner has not properly
interpreted the language "implementation of the call to the
object" as per the definition provided in Appellant's
88
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007