Appeal No. 2004-0538
Application No. 09/976,495
(emphasis original) In re Cruciferous Sprout Litigation, 301 F.3d 1343, 1348, 64
USPQ2d 1202, 1205, (Fed. Cir. 2002) (citing Intervet America Inc v. Kee-Vet
Laboratories Inc. 12 USPQ2d 1474, 1476 (Fed. Cir. 1989)). “[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.3d 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 Systems, Inc. v. Telegenix, Inc., 308 F.3d at 1204, 64
USPQ2d at 1819 (Fed. Cir. 2002). (“[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 (C.C.P.A.
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.” Id. “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
-5-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007