Appeal No. 2002-0883
Application No. 08/759,899
limitations appearing in the specification are not to be read
into the claims. In re Etter, 756 F.2d 852, 858, 225 USPQ 1, 5
(Fed. Cir. 1985). "[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.,
308 F.3d 1193, 1204, 64 USPQ2d 1812, 1819.
Appellants have provided a definition for a desktop on page
2 of the specification. As defined, a desktop "is an arrangement
of graphical elements used on the user's screen, such as
backgrounds ("wallpaper"), icons, and open application windows.
Based upon this definition, we find that desktop as defined by
the Appellants is the same as the Goh disclosed desktop 102
88
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007