Appeal No. 2004-1148
Application No. 09/374,694
The written description must also be examined, because
it is relevant to aid in the claim construction
analysis, e.g., to determine if the presumption of
ordinary and customary meaning is rebutted. See
Renishaw PLC v. Marposs Societa' per Azioni, 158 F.3d
1243, 1250 [48 USPQ2d 1117] (Fed. Cir. 1998). The
presumption will be overcome where the patentee, acting
as his or her own lexicographer, has clearly set forth
a definition of the term different from its ordinary
and customary meaning. See In re Paulsen, 30 F.3d
1475, 1480 [31 USPQ2d 1671] (Fed. Cir. 1994);
Intellicall, Inc. v. Phonometrics, Inc., 952 F.2d 1384,
1387-88 [21 USPQ2d 1383] (Fed. Cir. 1992). . . . See
Teleflex, 299 F.3d at 1324.
ACTV Inc. v. Walt Disney Co., 346 F.3d 1082, 1090-91, 68 USPQ2d
1516, 1523 (Fed. Cir. 2003).
While limitations in the specification must not be
routinely imported into the claims because a patentee
need not describe all embodiments of his invention, see
Rexnord, 274 F.3d at 1344, a definition of a claim term
in the specification will prevail over a term's
ordinary meaning if the patentee has acted as his own
lexicographer and clearly set forth a different
definition, see Tex. Digital Sys., 308 F.3d at 1204
(noting that 'the inconsistent dictionary definition
must be rejected' if the specification rebuts the
presumption of ordinary and customary meaning);
Rexnord, 274 F.3d at 1342.
3M Innovative Properties Co. v. Avery Dennison Corp., 350 F.3d
1365, 1371, 69 USPQ2d 1050, 1054 (Fed. Cir. 2003).
Appellant clearly defines "semantic type" in the
specification (page 3) as "the different connotative meanings
that the information contents of resources can have, as perceived
by the user." This definition requires that the different
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007