Appeal No. 2004-2124
Application No. 09/795,197
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 (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.” Id.
Claim 1 includes the limitation “said apparatus housing having at least two cable
ports, said cable being extended selectively through said cable ports.” The examiner,
on page 3 of the answer, defines the limitation “port” as “a connection point for a peripheral
device” citing the American Heritage Dictionary (3d. ed., Houghton Mifflin
Co. 1992). We agree this is one of the many meanings of the term “port.” However, we
find that this meaning is inconsistent with the use of the term in claim 1 and appellant’s
specification. Claim 1 and appellant’s specification describe a port as something
through which a cable extends and not a point of connection as in the examiner’s
definition.
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007