"Plurality" is defined as "a large number; multitude." See Exhibit 1003
(Definition of "plurality" as provided by Random House Webster's
Collegiate Dictionary).
Paper 21, pp. 6-7. Giving plurality this meaning, Wakalopulos argues that Bilstad's specification
at best discloses members which manipulate objects in only a single direction. Bilstad, itis argued,
fails to disclose members capable of manipulating objects in many directions. Paper 21, pp. 6-7.
On the other hand, Bilstad asserts that the term refers to any number greater than one.
The ordinary and customary meaning of the term "plurality" is "more than
one." This is one of the most widely used words in patent prosecution. The
Federal Circuit has held absent support in the file history to show the
contrary, the term plurality "means, simply, 'the state of being plural."' York
Products, Inc. v. Central Tractor Farm & Family Center, 99 F.3d 1568, 1575,
40 U.S.P.Q.2d 1619, 1625 (Fed. Cir. 1996). The Court elaborated upon this
definition five years later, when it held "that'plurality,' when used in a claim,
refers to two or more items, absent some indication to the contrary." Dgyco
Products, Inc. v. Total Containment, Inc., 258 F.3d 1317, 1328, 59
U.S.P.Q.2d 1489 (Fed. Cir. 2001).
Paper 28, p. 15. Bilstad then takes this definition and attempts to show that the specification
describes embodiments which fall within this definition:
A specific embodiment of the invention of Claim 57 is shown in Figures 1,
2, 3A-3D, and 5A-513 of the Bilstad application, and is described in the
portions of that application that discuss these Figures. These different Figures
are interrelated, and together illustrated members manipulating objects in a
plurality of directions.
Paper 28, p. 8. For example Bilstad argues that the specification describes manipulating objects in
three directions which is a "plurality" under Bilstad's definition. Paper 28, pp. 17-18.
B.
We have not been directed to any evidence showing that "plurality" has an art accepted or
understood meaning. Nor have we been directed to any portions of Bilstad's specification which
provides a application specific definition. In fact, the only place in Bilstad's specification where the
word appears is in the claims copied to provoke this interference. Thus, the ordinary meaning of the
word controls. It is well settled that dictionaries provide evidence of a claim term's "ordinary
meaning." Texas Digital Systems v. Telegenix, Inc., 308 F.3d 1193, 1202, 64 USPQ2d 1812,1818
(Fed. Cit. 2002), CCS Fitness, Inc. v. Brunswick Corp., 288 F.3d 1359, 1366, 62 USPQ2d 1658,
-23-
Page: Previous 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007