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 99Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 NextLast modified: November 3, 2007