Appeal No. 2002-0510 Page 7
Application No. 09/139,309
dictionaries provide evidence of a claim term's 'ordinary meaning.'" Inverness Med.
Switz. GmbH v. Warner Lambert Co., 309 F.3d 1365, 1369, 64 USPQ2d 1926, 1930
(Fed. Cir. 2002) (citing Texas Digital Sys. Inc. v. Telegenix Inc., 308 F.3d 1193, 1202,
64 USPQ2d 1812, 1818 (Fed. Cir. 2002); CCS Fitness, Inc. v. Brunswick Corp., 288
F.3d 1359, 1366, 62 USPQ2d 1658, 1662 (Fed. Cir. 2002)).
Here, claim 5 specifies in pertinent part the following limitations: "a layer of neat
dielectric polymer or glass distinct from the layer of variable voltage material. . . ."
(Emphasis added.) The term "distinct" is defined as "distinguishable from all others;
separate; discrete. . . ." American Heritage Dictionary 411 (2d College ed. 1982) (copy
attached). Giving the terms in the claim their ordinary and accustomed meaning, we
conclude that one skilled in the art would understand that the limitations require a layer
of neat dielectric polymer or glass separate from a layer of variable voltage material.
Third, the examiner asserts, "[t]he term 'in contact with' anywhere it appears
such as claim[] . . . 11 is not clear where applicant argues that the term is used to
denote contact for purposes of establishing a voltage discharge path." (Examiner's
Answer at 4.) The appellants argue, "[o]ne of ordinary skill in the art, looking at
appellants' disclosure, would be readily apprised of the meaning of 'in contact with'
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007