Appeal No. 2001-2672
Application 08/990,360
object access model. Therefore, the question before us is
whether Rymer teaches or suggests or discloses the use of more
than one remote object access model.
Upon our review of Rymer, we find that Rymer pertains to
managing different implementations of the same remote object
access model. See page 1, paragraph 5, lines 5 through 11 of
Rymer. Thus, Rymer pertains to different implementations of the
same model, namely CORBA 1.x1.
As our reviewing court states, “[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
Sys. Inc. v. Telegenix, Inc., 308 F.3d 1193, 1202, 64 USPQ2d
1812, 1817 (Fed. Cir. 2002).
Moreover, the intrinsic record also must be examined in
every case to determine whether the presumption of ordinary
and customary meaning in 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.
Id. at 1204, 64 USPQ2d at 1819. “[A] common meaning, such as one
expressed in a relevant dictionary, that flies in the face of the
patent disclosure is undeserving of fealty.” Id. (citing Renishaw
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007