Ex Parte WILHELM - Page 8




            Appeal No. 2003-1030                                                                              
            Application No. 08/820,181                                                                        


            customary meaning is rebutted.  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. [Citation omitted.] ("[A] common meaning, such as         
            one expressed in a relevant dictionary, that flies in the face of the patent disclosure is        
            undeserving of fealty."); 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.         
            [Citations omitted.] 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.  See Teleflex,           
            299 F.3d at 1324, 63 USPQ2d at 1380.  Texas Digital Sys., Inc v. Telegenix, Inc., 308             
            F.3d at 1204, 64 USPQ2d at 1819.                                                                  
                   Appellant argues that the stationary queue is not a queue in the normal use of             
            the term queue, but rather a structure which presents a queue-like behavior without               
            being a queue.  Appellant argues that the invention achieves queue like behavior (first-          
            come, first served) without the use of a real queue.  (Brief at pages 14-15.)  We do not          
            find that this argument is persuasive since a queue need not be FIFO order, therefore             

                                                      8                                                       





Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007