Dictionary definitions provide an adequate starting point when the specification does not recite a claim term. Here, for example, the claim term “channel” was found to be adequately characterized by its dictionary definition of “a long gutter, groove, or furrow” because the specification did not recite, much less define the term. “When construing claim terms, [it is permissible to] rely on dictionaries ‘so long as the dictionary definition does not contradict any definition found in or ascertained by reading the patent document.’” This would be a good case to consult and cite when asserting a desired definition of a claim term not found in the specification itself.
Background / Facts: The patents on appeal here from rejection at the PTO as part of an inter partes reexamination are directed to high performance data cables utilizing twisted pairs of conductors. The claims recite using an interior support with grooves that can accommodate at least one signal transmission conductor. Although not recited in the specification, the claims use the term “channel” to refer to this space.
Issue(s): Whether the Board erred by construing “channels” to simply mean “grooves” rather than to more specifically refer to the substantially enclosed spaces that form after the jacket envelops the twisted pairs.
Holding(s): No. “Here, the specification does not recite, much less define, ‘channels.’ The dictionaries thus provide an adequate starting point, and simply define ‘channels’ as ‘a long gutter, groove, or furrow.’ [] Nothing in the intrinsic record conflicts with that ordinary meaning. Indeed, the specification and prosecution history only elaborate upon that understanding. The patents both derive from the [parent] patent, which describes the term ‘channel’ as a type of ‘open space.’”