Appeal No. 2006-1193 11
Application No. 09/961,036
unlikely to result in a reliable interpretation of patent claim scope unless
considered in the context of the intrinsic evidence. Phillips v. AWH Corp.,
415 F.3d 1303, 1319, 75 USPQ2d 1321, 1331 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc).
In particular, with respect to the use of dictionaries, the court in Phillips
stated: “different dictionaries may contain somewhat different sets of
definitions for the same words. A claim should not rise or fall based upon
the preferences of a particular dictionary editor, or the court's independent
decision, uninformed by the specification, to rely on one dictionary rather
than another.” Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1322, 75 USPQ2d at 1333. The court in
Phillips reaffirmed its view that the specification “is always highly relevant to
the claim construction analysis. Usually, it is dispositive; it is the single
best guide to the meaning of a disputed term.” Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1315,
75 USPQ2d at 1327, quoting Vitronics Corp. v. Conceptronic, Inc., 90 F.3d
1576, 1582, 39 USPQ2d 1573, 1577 (Fed. Cir. 1996). Accordingly, we will
look to the instant specification for the intended meaning of the claimed
“refractory metal.”
In particular, we note that appellants have provided within the instant
specification specific examples of refractory metals suitable for instant metal
first layer 26 that include: titanium, zirconium, hafnium, nickel, cobalt,
Page: Previous 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007