Gm Global Epc Free 18
Gm Global Epc Free 18 - https://urlin.us/2tgZBP
\"For such ordinary meaning, [the court] turns, generally, to the dictionary definition of the term.\"[24]Optical Disc Corp., 208 F.3d at 1335 (citing Vitronics, 90 F.3d at 1584 n. 6). This ordinary meaning provides the \"default meaning,\" and the court must then consider the specification, and if in evidence the prosecution history, to determine whether the patentee provided a distinct definition for a term, or used any terms in a manner inconsistent with their ordinary meaning. See, e.g., Hormone Research Found., Inc. v. Genentech, Inc., 904 F.2d 1558, 1563 (Fed.Cir.1990) (\"It is a well-established axiom in patent law that a patentee is free to be his or her own lexicographer and thus may use terms in a manner contrary to or inconsistent with one or more of their ordinary meanings.\") (citations omitted); Vitronics, 90 F.3d at 1582 (\"[I]t is always necessary to review the specifications to determine whether the inventor has used any terms in a manner inconsistent with their ordinary meaning.\").
And finally, the Court concludes that applying the function-way-result test, a jury could reasonably find that the reset button in the NG Air Alert is equivalent to the reset means in the '456 patent. Donaldson argues that, in contrast to the reset mechanism in the '456 patent, its NG Air Alert employs two independent parts to disengage the locking fingers: the flexible fingers which wedge against the ridges of shoulders in the tube attached to the diaphragm, and the reset button which, when pushed, causes a set of reset legs to extend over the flexible fingers thereby bending and collapsing them away from the tube so that the diaphragm is free to return to its original position. As this Court has construed the means-plus-function element at issue, the button is the corresponding structure and a jury could reasonably find that the button on the NG Air Alert fully performs the function of \"selectively disengaging\" the interengagable notches. And even if, as Donaldson contends, the force transmitted by the button in the '456 patent is a lateral force as opposed to the downward force transmitted by the button in the NG Air Alert, a jury could reasonably find that distinction insubstantial under the doctrine of equivalents.
[24] Although dictionaries are technically extrinsic evidence (and thus under Federal Circuit rules entitled to relatively little weight), the Federal Circuit has distinguished dictionaries and held that \"[j]udges are free to consult such resources at any time ... and may also rely on dictionary definitions when construing claim terms, so long as the dictionary definition does not contradict any definition found in or ascertained by a reading of the patent document.\" Vitronics, 90 F.3d at 1584 n. 6. This rule rests on the premise that both the patentee and the public have equal access to such reference works, and therefore they can be appropriately used to assist in understanding the meaning and scope of the claim. See id. 153554b96e
https://www.maislingua.com.br/forum/nova-categoriapremium-8/essi-vivono-full-movie-hd-full-download