whereas concluding the term did not include color, would result in a finding of infringement. (Tr. Hearing Sept. 28,1998 at 27-28.) In interpreting the term “symbols of said human readable code,” I first look to the words of the claims themselves to define the scope of the patented invention. See Bell Communications Research, Inc. v. Vitalink Communications Corp., 55 F.3d 615, 620 (Fed.Cir.1995). 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. Hoechst Celanese Corp. v. BP Chems. Ltd., 78 F.3d 1575, 1578 (Fed.Cir.1996) (<HOLDING>) (citations omitted). Second, I review the
holding that when a term is not defined in a contract the presumption is that the term is to be given its ordinary meaning and significance holding that an assignment or sale of rights in the invention and potential patent rights is not a sale of the invention within the meaning of section 102b holding a technical term used in a patent document is interpreted as having the meaning that it would be given by persons experienced in the field of the invention unless it is apparent from the patent and the prosecution history that the inventor used the term with a different meaning holding that statements made during the prosecution history may commit the applicant to a particular meaning for a patent term which meaning is then binding in litigation holding that the meaning of a term in a claim must be consistent with its appearance in other claims in the same patent