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