Appeal No. 2005-0004
Application No. 09/135,230
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.”)).
Claim 1 includes the limitations “providing a network connection between the
network browser and the server machine in accordance with connection information
associated with the particular network address.” Appellants argue, on page 8 of the
brief: “the specification of the present application explains that the connection
information is about how to make a connection, not with whom to make a connection.”
We concur with this interpretation of the limitation. We find that the connection
-6-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007