Opinion ID: 427227
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Claim Construction--The Specification

Text: 24 In Autogiro Co. of America v. United States, 384 F.2d 391, 397, 155 USPQ 697, 702 (Ct.Cl.1967), our predecessor court recognized that patentees are not confined to normal dictionary meanings: 25 The dictionary does not always keep abreast of the inventor. It cannot. Things are not made for the sake of words but words for things. To overcome this lag, patent law allows the inventor to be his own lexicographer. (Citations omitted.) 26 A patentee's verbal license augments the difficulty of understanding the claims, and to understand their meaning, they must be construed in connection with the other parts of the patent instrument and with the circumstances surrounding the inception of the patent application. Id. Accord, General Electric Co. v. United States, 572 F.2d 745, 751-53, 198 USPQ 65, 70-73 (Ct.Cl.1978). 27 This appeal hinges on construction of reaction. The specification discloses a new and improved method of forming plates for use in lithography. Fromson discovered that the treatment of anodized aluminum with an aqueous solution of water soluble alkali metal silicate produces a water insoluble, hydrophilic, organophobic layer on the aluminum, a layer having exceptional lithography-related properties. Fromson's invention included the formation of the layer, not its exact structure. Though Fromson referred to the disclosed treatment as involving a reaction, he also referred to it in the specification as an application and as adsorption. Not all references to reaction were accompanied by a reference to formation of an aluminosilicate. 28 Fromson did theorize that his new, improved layer was an aluminosilicate believed to be in the nature of a commercial zeolite, having properties of a molecular sieve, but expressed that theory as merely a belief. There is no basis or warrant for incorporating that belief as a limitation in the claims. It is undisputed that inclusion of Fromson's theory and belief was unnecessary to meet the enablement requirement of 35 U.S.C. Sec. 112 (that a patentee describe how to make and use the invention). Moreover, it is axiomatic that an inventor need not comprehend the scientific principles on which the practical effectiveness of his invention rests. See, e.g., Diamond Rubber Co. v. Consolidated Rubber Co., 220 U.S. 428, 435-36, 31 S.Ct. 444, 447-48, 55 L.Ed. 527 (1911).