Appeal No. 2006-0823 Παγε 6
Application No. 10/284,474
Barr, 444 F.2d 588, 593, 170 USPQ 330, 335 (CCPA 1971). After
all, it is well established that appellant can be his own
lexicographer so long as terms are clearly defined and not given
meanings repugnant or abhorrent to the ordinary meaning.
Applying these principles to the present case, we observe
that all of the claims before us require either a plastic lid
including a hinge line (claims 1-4) or a hinge assembly including
“a hinge line formed in one of the lid and the container...”, as
recited in independent claim 5 and, consequently, also required
in dependent appealed claims 6 and 7. In the brief (pages 10 and
11), appellant notes that the claim term “hinge line” is defined
at page 3, paragraph 0015 of their specification. In the cited
specification paragraph, a hinge line (14) is “defined by aligned
openings of the container and lid(s) and a hinge pin ....” See
drawing figure 1.
However, the above reproduced specification definition for
the claim term “hinge line”, as asserted by appellant in the
brief as being operative, is internally inconsistent with the use
of that term in the appealed claims.
As for appealed claims 1-4, this is so because those claims
do not require a container and a lid with aligned openings.
Rather they are drawn to a plastic lid including a hinge line.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007