Appeal No. 2004-0199
Application No. 09/385,489
As our reviewing court states, "[T]he terms used in the
claims bear a 'heavy presumption' that they mean what they say
and have the ordinary meaning that would be attributed to those
words by persons skilled in the relevant art." Texas Digital
Sys., Inc. v. Telegenix, Inc., 308 F.2d 1193, 1202, 64 USPQ2d
1812, 1817 (Fed. Cir. 2002).
"Moreover, the intrinsic record also must be examined in
every case to determine whether the presumption of ordinary and
customary meaning is rebutted." (citation omitted). "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."
Texas Digital Sys., 308 F.3d at 1204, 64 USPQ2d at 1819. ("[A]
common meaning, such as one expressed in a relevant dictionary,
that flies in the face of the patent disclosure is undeserving of
fealty."); Id. (citing 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
99
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007