Interference No. 105,113
circumstances, it is improper to rely on extrinsic evidence."). See also Vitronics, 90 F.3d at 584
n.3, 39 USPQ2d at 1578 n.6:7
Although technical treatises and dictionaries fall within the category of
extrinsic evidence, as they do not form a part of an integrated patent document,
they are worthy of special note. Judges are free to consult such resources at any
time in order to better understand the underlying technology and may also rely on
dictionary definitions when construing claim terms, so long as the dictionary
definition does not contradict any definition found in or ascertained by a reading
of the patent documents."
Thus, the analysis of a disputed claim term begins with the relevant dictionaries and treatises.
See Kumar v. Ovonic Battery Co., 351 F.3d 1364, 1367, 69 USPQ2d 1220, 1222 (Fed. Cir.
2003) ("Under our precedent in Texas Digital Sys., Inc. v. Telegenix, Inc., 308 F.3d 1193,
1201-02 [64 USPQ2d 1812[ (Fed. Cir. 2002), and Inverness II [Inverness Med. Switz. GmbH v.
Warner Lambert Co.], 309 F.3d [1373,] 1378 [64 USPQ2d 1933 (Fed. Cir. 2002)], we look first
to the dictionary definition of a contested term."). In In re Thrift, 298 F.3d 1357, 1364,
63 USPQ2d 2002, 2006 (Fed. Cir. 2002), the court likewise began an analysis of a disputed term
In an application claim by considering dictionary definitions:
[W]e interpret the phrase “speech user agent” consistent with its plain meaning:
an interface that allows the user to interact with the system by speaking. See IBM
Dictionary of Computing 638 (10th ed. 1994) (defining “speech recognition” as
“[t]he recognition of voice communication as a series of words or sentences”);
Van Nostrand Reinhold Dictionary of Information Technology 473 (3d ed. 1989)
(defining “speech recognizer” as “[i]n man-machine interfaces, a system that
receives spoken word inputs and identifies the message. The system output can
then be used to initiate appropriate actions or responses.”); Johnson Worldwide
Assocs., Inc. v. Zebco Corp., 175 F.3d 985, 989, 50 USPQ2d 1607, 1610 (Fed.
7 The F.3d footnote number differs from USPQ2d footnote number due to footnote
numbering errors in the USPQ2d version of this decision.
- 8 -
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007