Appeal No. 2003-0163
Application No. 09/400,508
technology and the terminology used by those skilled in the art to describe the
technology. Id. at 1203, 64 USPQ2d at 1818. In the instant case, all the independent
claims contain the terms “low noise current source” and “relatively independent.”
There is no evidence in the record that the terms “low noise current source” and
“relatively independent” had any special meaning to the artisan at the time of
disclosure. Nor do we find any particular definition of the terms in the instant
specification. See In re Paulsen, 30 F.3d 1475, 1480, 31 USPQ2d 1671, 1674 (Fed.
Cir. 1994) (repeating the principle that where an inventor chooses to be his own
lexicographer and gives terms uncommon meanings, he must set out the uncommon
definition in the patent disclosure). See also Beachcombers Int'I. Inc. v. WildeWood
Creative Prods.. Inc., 31 F.3d 1154, 1158, 31 USPQ2d 1653, 1656 (Fed. Cir. 1994)
("As we have repeatedly said, a patentee can be his own lexicographer provided the
patentee's definition, to the extent it differs from the conventional definition, is clearly
set forth in the specification."); Johnson Worldwide Assocs. Inc. v. Zebco Corp., 175
F.3d 985, 989, 50 USPQ2d 1607, 1610 (Fed. Cir. 1999) (there is a "heavy presumption"
that claim language has its ordinary meaning).
With respect to independent claim 1, we find that the examiner has established a
prima facie case of anticipation, and identified of correlation of each claimed element
to the disclosure of Lee. The examiner has maintained that the above language with
respect to “relatively independent” is vague and presumes that there is a relative
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007