Ex Parte Bennis - Page 8

                Appeal 2007-1788                                                                             
                Application 09/766,032                                                                       
                as much as possible, during the administrative process.”  In re Zletz, 893                   
                F.2d 319, 322, 13 USPQ2d 1320, 1322 (Fed. Cir. 1989).                                        
                      Claim 18 uses the terms “about” and “approximately.”  We first look                    
                to the Specification to determine whether Appellant has acted as his own                     
                lexicographer in defining “about” and “approximately.”  See Merck & Co.,                     
                v. TEVA Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc., 395 F.3d 1364, 1369-70, 73 USPQ2d                         
                1641, 1646 (Fed. Cir. 2005).  Our review of the Specification, however, does                 
                not reveal that “about” and “approximately” have been defined in way                         
                different from their ordinary meaning.1  We thus interpret those terms                       
                consistent with their ordinary meaning.  See id.  “About” may be defined by                  
                its ordinary and accepted meaning of “approximately.”  See id., 395 F.3d at                  
                1372, 73 USPQ2d at 1648.  Turning to “approximately,” that term may be                       
                defined as “nearly exact, not perfectly accurate or correct.”2  Thus, as Riead               
                teaches that the float buoyancy of the bobber (i.e. the spring constant of the               
                bobber in water) is only slightly greater than switch sensitivity, which is                  
                                                                                                            
                1 The dissent would limit “approximately equal” to the embodiment shown in                   
                Figures 11-13.  While the Specification at page 9 states that Figures 11-13                  
                show an alternate preferred embodiment of the invention wherein the force                    
                required to completely depress the spring 12 approximately equal to the                      
                buoyancy force of bobber main body 15, there is nothing that limits the                      
                language “approximately equal” to only that preferred embodiment.  There                     
                are many embodiments that fall between the embodiment shown in Figures                       
                2-4 and Figures 11-13, and the bobber that is described by Riead                             
                demonstrates one of those embodiments.  In our view, the dissent is reading                  
                limitations from the specification into the claims, a practice that the Court of             
                Appeals for the Federal Circuit, our reviewing court, cautions against.  See                 
                SuperGuideCorp. v. DirecTV Enterprises, Inc., 358 F.3d 870, 875, 69                          
                USPQ2d 1865, 1868-69 (Fed. Cir. 2004).                                                       
                2 Dictionary.com. Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1). Random House, Inc.                      
                http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/approximately (accessed: June 28,                     
                2007).                                                                                       
                                                     8                                                       

Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  Next

Last modified: September 9, 2013