Panel Strays From Plain Meaning Claim Construction Finding Patentee Acted As Lexicographer

In vacating a decision by a district court that granted summary judgment of non-infringement, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit held that the prior art definition of the claim term "amorphous" was preferred over the dictionary definition. Kumar v. Ovonic Battery Co., Inc., et al., Case Nos. 02-1551, -1574, 03-1091 (Fed. Cir. Dec. 11, 2003).

The patent-in-suit is directed to a battery that employs a certain alloy to store hydrogen in a rechargeable battery, overcoming the inevitable fracturing associated with repeated recharging. The claimed alloy has a molecular structure that is less ordered than prior art materials, and thus more immune than highly ordered structures to material fracture caused by repeated recharging. The parties disputed the construction of the claim term "amorphous" and whether it should be construed to mean "completely amorphous," i.e., no ordering of molecules, or, using a prior art definition, be constructed to cover partially crystalline