A lot of time we run out of words, while drafting the claim, particularly mechanical arts, simply because they are so many parts to cover, thus it is necessary to define our own lexicographers, but this is very dangerous and must be handled with care, otherwise, not only scope being changed but applied arts to your application, can’t be overcome.??
The applicant may rebut the presumption that terms are to be given their ordinary and customary meaning by clearly setting forth a definition of the term in the specification that is different from its ordinary and customary meaning(s), but the applicant must do so “with reasonable clarity, deliberateness, and precision” within the specification so as to give one notice of the change in meaning.
Please note: (a) Exemplification is not sufficient, and
? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?? (b) An “explicit definition” in the specification is generally sufficient, however, even “explicit definitions” can be subject to varying interpretations.
So is there a guaranteed way to ensure, your lexicography is not interpreted differently than your intention? The answer is no, but together with couple of examples, clear, explicit definitions should be enough. How clear is clear? Maybe to the point become stupid, and you are laughing at yourselves, that’s probably where the sweet spot is.???
編輯于 2019-8-15 著作權(quán)歸作者所有
