Appeal No. 2002-1687
Application No. 09/188,712
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 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.”); Texas Digital Systems, Inc. v.
Telegenix, 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. “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.. Upon our review of Appellants’ specification, we
agree with Appellants that the term, “on-line analytical processing” as set forth in
Appellants claims is defined to provide analytical processing to provide an
9
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007