Appeal 2007-2127
Reexamination Control No. 90/006,621
90 F.3d 1576, 1582, 39 USPQ2d 1573, 1577 (Fed. Cir. 1996)). Next in
importance is the prosecution history, which directly reflects how the
patentee has characterized the invention. Id. at 1317, 75 USPQ2d at 1329.
Extrinsic evidence, such as testimony, dictionaries, learned treatises, or other
material not part of the public record associated with the patent, may be
helpful but is "less significant than the intrinsic record in determining the
legally operative meaning of claim language." Id., 75 USPQ2d at 1330
(quoting C.R. Bard, Inc. v. U.S. Surgical Corp., 388 F.3d 858, 862,
73 USPQ2d 1011, 1014 (Fed. Cir. 2004)).
"Although words in a claim are generally given their ordinary and
customary meaning, a patentee may choose to be his own lexicographer and
use terms in a manner other than their ordinary meaning, as long as the
special definition of the term is clearly stated in the patent specification or
file history. . . . Thus, . . . it is always necessary to review the specification
to determine whether the inventor has used any terms in a manner
inconsistent with their ordinary meaning." Vitronics v. Conceptronic,
90 F.3d at 1582, 39 USPQ2d at 1576.
Facts
1. None of the 1982, 1985, and 1990 applications, as filed, mention
"threads" or "multithreading."
2. Beginning with Preliminary Amendment B of June 18, 1990 (Paper
No. 3, filed June 18, 1990) in the 1990 application, Patent Owner began to
amend the 1990 specification and to file claims having the terminology of
"threads" and "multithreading." This amendment is not part of the original
disclosure of the 1990 application. See Manual of Patent Examining
20
Page: Previous 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013