Ex Parte 7689437 et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Mar 25, 2015

95002371 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 25, 2015)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
United States Patent and Trademark Office
Address: COMMISSIONER FOR PATENTS
P.O. Box 1450
Alexandria, Virginia 22313-1450
www.uspto.gov
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
95/002,371 09/14/2012 7689437 92092-891614 6946
23370 7590 03/25/2015
KILPATRICK TOWNSEND & STOCKTON LLP
1100 PEACHTREE STREET
SUITE 2800
ATLANTA, GA 30309
EXAMINER
BANANKHAH, MAJID A
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3992
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
03/25/2015 PAPER
Please find below and/or attached an Office communication concerning this application or proceeding.
The time period for reply, if any, is set in the attached communication.
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
________________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
________________

BASIS SCIENCE, INC.
Requester

v.

BODYMEDIA, INC.
Patent Owner and Appellant
________________

Appeal 2015-000274
Reexamination Control 95/002,371
Patent 7,689,437 B1
Technology Center 3900
________________

Before JOHN A. JEFFERY, ERIC B. CHEN, and
JEREMY J. CURCURI, Administrative Patent Judges.

CURCURI, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Patent Owner appeals the Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1-55.
PO App. Br. 1. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. §§ 134 and 315, and
we heard the appeal on March 4, 2015.
Appeal 2015-000274
Reexamination Control 95/002,371
Patent 7,689,437 B1

2
Claims 32-37, 40-43, 46-51, 53, and 54 are rejected under 35 U.S.C.
102(e) as anticipated by Amano (US 6,030,342; issued Feb. 29, 2000). RAN
4-27, 37-46.
Claims 39 and 45 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as obvious over
Amano and Myllymaki (US 5,670,944; issued Sep. 23, 1997). RAN 27-30,
46-48.
Claims 38 and 44 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as obvious over
Amano and Pottgen (US 5,524,618; issued June 11, 1996). RAN 31-36, 48-
49.
Claims 1-10, 13-16, 18, 19, 21-31, 52, and 55 are rejected under 35
U.S.C. 103(a) as obvious over Amano and Mault (US 6,478,736; issued
Nov. 12, 2002). RAN 36-37, 49-52.
Claims 12 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as obvious over
Amano, Mault, and Myllymaki. RAN 37, 52.
Claims 11 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as obvious over
Amano, Mault, and Pottgen. RAN 37, 52-53.
We affirm.
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
This proceeding arose from a request by BASIS Science, Inc. for an
inter partes reexamination of Patent 7,689,437 B1, entitled “System for
Monitoring Health, Wellness and Fitness (“the ’437 patent”). The
’437 patent describes “a system for monitoring health, wellness and fitness.”
’437 patent, col. 1, ll. 6-7. Claim 32, which is reproduced below with the
disputed limitation emphasized, is illustrative:
Appeal 2015-000274
Reexamination Control 95/002,371
Patent 7,689,437 B1

3
32. A method for assisting an individual to monitor, control and
modify certain aspects of the individual’s physiological status according to a
preset physiological status goal, said individual wearing a wearable
physiological monitoring device, the method comprising:
establishing said physiological status goal according to certain
physiological parameters of said individual;
generating data with said wearable device, said generated data
indicative of a first parameter of said individual wearing said wearable
physiological monitoring device;
generating data indicative of a second parameter of said individual
with at least one of said wearable device and a second device;
calculating, directly from said first and second parameters,
quantitative status information indicative of the relative degree of
achievement of said individual’s performance with relation to said
physiological status goal; and
communicating to a recipient said calculated quantitative status
information indicative of a suggested change in said individual's
performance to assist said individual in the achievement of said
physiological status goal,
wherein said first and second parameters are produced by at least one
of said individual’s body and the environment adjacent said individual’s
body.

Appeal 2015-000274
Reexamination Control 95/002,371
Patent 7,689,437 B1

4
ANALYSIS
THE ANTICIPATION REJECTION OF CLAIMS 32-37, 40-43, 46-51, 53, AND 54 BY
AMANO
The Examiner finds Amano describes all limitations of claims 32-37,
40-43, 46-51, 53, and 54. RAN 4-27, 37-46.
The Examiner finds Amano discloses the recited calculating, directly
from the first (Amano’s pulse rate) and second (Amano’s body temperature)
parameters, quantitative status information (Amano’s achievement rate
calculated from caloric expenditure, which is calculated from pulse rate and
body temperature) indicative of the relative degree of achievement of the
individual’s performance with relation to the physiological status goal.
RAN 7-9 (citing Amano, col. 18, ll. 7-43; col. 19, ll. 36-39, 44-54).
Patent Owner presents the following principal arguments:
i.
[T]he achievement rate of Amano is directly computed from
only a single variable, specifically, caloric expenditure.
Furthermore, Amano discloses that caloric expenditure is itself
directly calculated from only one variable, pulse rate, rather
than from pulse rate and body temperature, as alleged by the
Examiner. As discussed below, Amano does not disclose that
calorie expenditure is calculated from body temperature and
body motion, and instead simply discloses that body
temperature and (in some cases) body motion are used to select
a regression formula in which calorie expenditure is calculated
from pulse rate alone. Therefore, because Amano fails to
disclose that the achievement rate is directly calculated from
two parameters, Amano fails to disclose directly calculating
quantitative status information from a first parameter and a
second parameter, as recited in claim 32.
PO App. Br. 7-8.
Appeal 2015-000274
Reexamination Control 95/002,371
Patent 7,689,437 B1

5
ii.
[N]o person of ordinary skill in the art would interpret claim 32
in such a way that the term “directly calculating” encompasses
using any information that may influence how a calculation is
performed. Such a construction of this term (which was
implicitly and erroneously relied upon by the Examiner)
renders the use of the qualifier “directly” in the phrase “directly
calculating” essentially meaningless.
PO App. Br. 9; see also PO Reb. Br. 7-9.
We are unpersuaded of any error in the Examiner’s findings.
Regarding Patent Owner’s arguments (i) and (ii), we find these
arguments unpersuasive. Patent Owner does not define the term “directly
calculating” in the Specification. Rather, Patent Owner’s Specification
(col. 18, ll. 18-47) describes an example where information regarding sleep
is presented to the user, but there is no limiting definition described. The
plain meaning of “direct” is defined, in pertinent sense, as “a : from point to
point without deviation : by the shortest way.”
1
Thus, a broad, but
reasonable construction of the term “directly calculating” includes
calculating from point to point without deviation. This construction is the
same construction adopted by the Examiner. See RAN 45. With this
construction, Amano discloses the argued limitation.
Amano discloses calculating caloric expenditure from pulse rate and
body temperature, and achievement rate from caloric expenditure.
Achievement rate is calculated in a direct manner, proceeding directly from
pulse rate and body temperature. We find this calculation is point to point
(from pulse rate and body temperature, according to a specific algorithm, to

1
MERRIAM WEBSTER’S COLLEGIATE DICTIONARY 328 (10th ed
1997).
Appeal 2015-000274
Reexamination Control 95/002,371
Patent 7,689,437 B1

6
achievement rate) and without deviation. See Amano, col. 18, ll. 7-43;
col. 19, ll. 36-39, 44-54).
With further regard for Patent Owner’s argument (ii), we find the
qualifier “directly” is not rendered meaningless in our construction. For
example, an indirect calculation would include significant inferences not
included in a direct calculation.
We, therefore, sustain the anticipation rejection of claim 32 based on
Amano, as well as the rejection of claims 33-37, 40-43, 46-51, 53, and 54,
which are not separately argued with particularity.

THE OBVIOUSNESS REJECTION OF CLAIMS 39 AND 45 OVER AMANO AND
MYLLYMAKI
The Examiner finds Amano and Myllymaki teach all limitations of
claims 39 and 45. RAN 27-30, 46-48.
Patent Owner presents the following principal argument:
i. “[A]dding the skin conductivity transducer taught by
Myllymaki to the calorie expenditure device of Amano would have no
impact on the calorie expenditure calculation taught by Amano.” PO App.
Br. 12. “[N]o evidence of record supports a finding that an indication of
whether a subject is sweating or any other data obtained with a conductivity
transducer can be used with pulse rate, temperature, and/or accelerometer
data to determine calorie expenditure.” PO App. Br. 12; see also PO Reb.
Br. 1-7.
We are not persuaded of any error in the Examiner’s findings and
conclusions.
Appeal 2015-000274
Reexamination Control 95/002,371
Patent 7,689,437 B1

7
We agree with, and adopt as our own, the Examiner’s finding that
Myllymaki’s conductivity transducer discloses the recited skin conductance
sensor. RAN 28, 29. We also agree with and adopt as our own the
Examiner’s reasoning that
it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to
modify the method of Amano to incorporate a skin conductance
sensor into a wearable physiological monitoring device.
Because Myllymaki teaches combining a skin conductance
sensor with e.g. a heart rate sensor and a body temperature
sensor to compensate for false data, it would be obvious to
modify the device of Amano to include a skin conductance
sensor as an additional sensor compensating for false data
caused by one sensor. It is prima facie obvious to use a known
technique to improve similar devices.
RAN 29, 30; see also RAN 48 (“Both Amano and Myllymaki are devices
that measure performance condition and false data from a sensor is not
limited to just some of such devices.”)
We also agree with and adopt as our own Requester’s further
explanation:
The disclosure of the combination of Amano and Myllymaki is
a system for determining caloric expenditure (as taught by
Amano) with a more accurate determination of whether a user
is at rest or active (as taught by the use of various sensors in
Myllymaki) to calculate caloric expenditure. Thus, the resulting
determination of caloric expenditure is more accurate.
3PR Resp. Br. 11.
We, therefore, sustain the obviousness rejection of claims 39 and 45
based on Amano and Myllymaki.

Appeal 2015-000274
Reexamination Control 95/002,371
Patent 7,689,437 B1

8
THE OBVIOUSNESS REJECTION OF CLAIMS 38 AND 44 OVER AMANO AND
POTTGEN
The Examiner finds Amano and Pottgen teach all limitations of claims
38 and 44. RAN 31-36, 48-49.
Patent Owner presents the following principal arguments:
i.
[N]othing in Amano discloses or suggests that a heat flow
sensor would provide a more accurate determination than the
disclosed temperature sensor that a subject’s body temperature
exceeds a threshold temperature. Indeed, nothing in Amano
discloses or suggests data obtained from a heat flow sensor can
be used in any way for selecting a regression formula to
calculate calorie expenditure.
PO App. Br. 18.
ii. “Nothing in Pottgen discloses or suggests that heat flux can be
used in combination with any variable other than body surface area to
determine calorie expenditure.” PO App. Br. 18.
iii. “Pottgen lacks any explicit disclosure of using heat flux data to
determine whether a user is at rest or active.” PO Reb. Br. 10.
iv. “Amano already solves the problem of determining calorie
expenditure and, therefore, a person of ordinary skill in the art would not
have combined Amano with Pottgen to solve the same problem.”
PO Reb. Br. 11.
We are not persuaded of any error in the Examiner’s findings and
conclusions.
Regarding Patent Owner’s arguments (i) and (ii), we find these
arguments unpersuasive because
Appeal 2015-000274
Reexamination Control 95/002,371
Patent 7,689,437 B1

9
[t]he test for obviousness is not whether the features of a
secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the
structure of the primary reference; nor is it that the claimed
invention must be expressly suggested in any one or all of the
references. Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of
the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill
in the art.
In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425 (CCPA 1981)(citations omitted).
Here, the Examiner relies on Amano’s body motion detector for the
recited body motion sensor, and Pottgen’s heat flux sensor for the recited
heat flux sensor. RAN 31-36.
We see no error in the Examiner’s conclusion that
it would have been obvious to modify the method of Amano to
incorporate a heat flux sensor into a wearable physiological
monitoring device. Because Amano uses a plurality of sensors
to compute caloric expenditure and Pottgen uses a heat flux
sensor to compute caloric expenditure, it would [have been]
obvious to modify the device of Amano to include a heat flux
sensor as an additional physiological parameter that may be
used for calculating caloric expenditure. It is prima facie
obvious to use a known technique to improve similar devices.
RAN 33-34, 36.
In addition, we also agree with and adopt as our own Requester’s
further explanation:
The heat flux sensor in Pottgen can provide additional data
relevant to determining whether a user is at rest or active and
thus allow for a more accurate selection of the rest vs. active
equation in Amano. In Amano, if body motion is absent,
temperature is assessed and if temperature is high, the user is
presumed to be active even absent body motion. Heat flux can
provide additional information to make the determination
between active and at rest.
3PR Resp. Br. 14.
Appeal 2015-000274
Reexamination Control 95/002,371
Patent 7,689,437 B1

10
Patent Owner has not persuaded us why the Examiner’s explanation is
insufficient, and we agree with the Examiner that the combined teachings of
Amano and Pottgen teach the claim limitations.
Regarding Patent Owner’s argument (iii), we find this argument
unpersuasive because, as explained above when addressing arguments (i)
and (ii), the combined teachings of Amano and Pottgen suggest using heat
flux data as additional information to determine between active and rest.
Regarding Patent Owner’s argument (iv), we find this argument
unpersuasive because, as explained above when addressing arguments (i)
and (ii), heat flux provides additional information to determine between
active and rest.
We, therefore, sustain the obviousness rejection of claims 38 and 44
based on Amano and Pottgen.

THE OBVIOUSNESS REJECTION OF CLAIMS 1-10, 13-16, 18, 19, 21-31, 52, AND
55 OVER AMANO AND MAULT
The Examiner finds Amano and Mault teach all limitations
of claims 1-10, 13-16, 18, 19, 21-31, 52, and 55. RAN 36-37, 49-52
(incorporating by reference Request filed September 14, 2012, pages 18-19
and Exhibit D claim chart pages 51-88).
Patent Owner presents the following principal arguments:
i. “Amano nowhere discloses or suggests the ability to calculate
caloric balance. It is therefore not at all obvious that providing for “caloric
balance” would constitute an obvious modification to the teachings of
Amano.” PO App. Br. 19.
Appeal 2015-000274
Reexamination Control 95/002,371
Patent 7,689,437 B1

11
ii. “Although the Examiner cites evidence of the alleged teachings
of Amano and Mault individually, the RAN lacks any citation of evidence
that one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to combine the
references for the reasons alleged by the Examiner.” PO App. Br. 19-20.
iii. “[T]he combination of references would change Amano’s
principle of operation from operating without data other than that which may
be inputted using a simple interface (e.g., two switches) to operating using
complex data that a user must obtain and enter into the disclosed device
using a sophisticated interface.” PO App. Br. 21; see also PO Reb. Br. 11-
12.
We are not persuaded of any error in the Examiner’s findings and
conclusions.
Regarding Patent Owner’s arguments (i) and (ii), we find these
arguments unpersuasive. We agree with and adopt as our own the
Examiner’s explanation:
In view of Mault’s teaching [of receiving food intake
information from the user], it would be obvious to one of
ordinary skill in the art to modify the method of Amano to
further comprise the step of receiving food intake information
from the user to improve the user’s tracking of caloric balance.
It is prima facie obvious to use a known technique to improve
similar devices.
Request filed September 14, 2012, Exhibit D claim chart pages 57.
Amano calculates calorie expenditure, and we agree with Requester
and the Examiner that “the logical next step to knowing how many calories
are expended is how many calories were consumed to arrive at caloric
balance.” RAN 49. Patent Owner has not persuaded us why the Examiner’s
explanation is insufficient.
Appeal 2015-000274
Reexamination Control 95/002,371
Patent 7,689,437 B1

12
Regarding Patent Owner’s argument (iii), we find this argument
unpersuasive. We agree with and adopt as our own the Examiner’s
explanation:
[A]dding the teachings of Mault to Amano does not require an
operation of Amano that is opposite to what is disclosed in
Amano. The fact that in Mault, the user manually enters data
related to the food consumed does not negate the principal [sic]
of operation of Amano that does not need the user to manually
input his/her information. In Amano the CPU 201 calculates the
achievement rate G with respect to the target value (Amano,
col. 19, ll. 36-39, and 44-54) and does not care whether the
input dat[a] is collected by sensors or entered by a user, and
[the] principal [sic] of operation is still the same.
RAN 50. Patent Owner has not persuaded us that the proposed modification
to Amano would change Amano’s principle of operation.
We, therefore, sustain the obviousness rejection of claims 1-10, 13-16,
18, 19, 21-31, 52, and 55 based on Amano and Mault.

THE OBVIOUSNESS REJECTION OF CLAIMS 12 AND 20 OVER AMANO, MAULT,
AND MYLLYMAKI
The Examiner finds Amano, Mault, and Myllymaki teach all
limitations of claims 12 and 20. RAN 37, 52 (incorporating by reference
Request filed September 14, 2012, pages 19-20 and Exhibit E claim chart
pages 89-91).
Patent Owner presents the following principal arguments:
i.
[N]either the Requestor nor the Examiner has cited a single
prior art reference or any other evidence that the feature of
using a skin conductance sensor to generate data related to
calories burned was known at the time of the invention.
Appeal 2015-000274
Reexamination Control 95/002,371
Patent 7,689,437 B1

13
Furthermore, no evidence of record supports a finding that any
data obtained with a skin conductivity transducer can be used
with (or instead of) a pulse rate, temperature, and/or []
accelerometer data to determine calorie expenditure.
PO App. Br. 23.
We are not persuaded of any error in the Examiner’s findings and
conclusions.
Claims 12 and 20 each recite a skin conductance sensor generating
data indicative of the resistance of the individual’s skin to electric current.
We agree with and adopt as our own the Examiner’s finding that
Myllymaki’s conductivity transducer discloses the recited skin conductance
sensor. Request filed September 14, 2012, Exhibit E claim chart pages 89-
91.
We also agree with and adopt as our own the Examiner’s reasoning
that
it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to
modify the method of Amano and Mault to incorporate a skin
conductance sensor into a wearable physiological monitoring
device. Because Myllymaki teaches combining a skin
conductance sensor with e.g. a heart rate sensor and a body
temperature sensor to compensate for false data, it would be
obvious to modify the devices of Amano and Mault to include a
skin conductance sensor as an additional sensor compensating
for false data caused by one sensor. It is prima facie obvious to
use a known technique to improve similar devices.
Request filed September 14, 2012, Exhibit E claim chart pages 90, 91.
We also agree with and adopt as our own Requester’s further
explanation:
The disclosure of the combination of Amano and Myllymaki is
a system for determining caloric expenditure (as taught by
Appeal 2015-000274
Reexamination Control 95/002,371
Patent 7,689,437 B1

14
Amano) with a more accurate determination of whether a user
is at rest or active (as taught by the use of various sensors in
Myllymaki) to calculate caloric expenditure. Thus, the resulting
determination of caloric expenditure is more accurate.
3PR Resp. Br. 11.
We, therefore, sustain the obviousness rejection of claims 12 and 20
based on Amano, Mault, and Myllymaki.

THE OBVIOUSNESS REJECTION OF CLAIMS 11 AND 17 OVER AMANO, MAULT,
AND POTTGEN
The Examiner finds Amano, Mault, and Pottgen teach all limitations
of claims 11 and 17. RAN 37, 52-53 (incorporating by reference Request
filed September 14, 2012, page 20 and Exhibit F claim chart pages 92-96).
Patent Owner presents the following principal arguments:
i.
Nothing in Amano discloses or suggests that the incorporation
of a heat flow sensor could improve the disclosed design or
could otherwise be used in any way for selecting a regression
formula to calculate calorie expenditure. See, e.g., Amano 18:6-
45. Specifically, nothing in Amano discloses or suggests that a
heat flow sensor would provide a more accurate determination
than the disclosed temperature sensor that a subject’s body
temperature exceeds a threshold temperature.
PO App. Br. 27.
ii. “Nothing in Pottgen discloses or suggests that heat flux can be
used in combination with any variable other than body surface area to
determine calorie expenditure.” PO App. Br. 27.
We are not persuaded of any error in the Examiner’s findings and
conclusions.
Appeal 2015-000274
Reexamination Control 95/002,371
Patent 7,689,437 B1

15
Regarding Patent Owner’s arguments (i) and (ii), we find these
arguments unpersuasive because
[t]he test for obviousness is not whether the features of a
secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the
structure of the primary reference; nor is it that the claimed
invention must be expressly suggested in any one or all of the
references. Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of
the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill
in the art.
In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425 (CCPA 1981)(citations omitted).
Here, the Examiner relies on Amano’s body motion detector for the
recited body motion sensor, and Pottgen’s heat flux sensor for the recited
heat flux sensor. Request filed September 14, 2012, Exhibit F claim chart
pages 92-96.
We see no error in the Examiner’s conclusion that
it would have been obvious to modify the method of Amano
and Mault to incorporate a heat flux sensor into a wearable
physiological monitoring device. Because Amano uses a
plurality of sensors to compute caloric expenditure and Pottgen
uses a heat flux sensor to compute caloric expenditure, it would
[have been] obvious to modify the device of Amano and Mault
to include a heat flux sensor as an additional physiological
parameter that may be used for calculating caloric expenditure.
It is prima facie obvious to use a known technique to improve
similar devices.
Request filed September 14, 2012, Exhibit F claim chart pages 94, 96.
In addition, we also agree with and adopt as our own Requester’s
further explanation:
The heat flux sensor in Pottgen can provide additional data
relevant to determining whether a user is at rest or active and
thus allow for a more accurate selection of the rest vs. active
equation in Amano. In Amano, if body motion is absent,
Appeal 2015-000274
Reexamination Control 95/002,371
Patent 7,689,437 B1

16
temperature is assessed and if temperature is high, the user is
presumed to be active even absent body motion. Heat flux can
provide additional information to make the determination
between active and at rest.
3PR Resp. Br. 14.
Patent Owner has not persuaded us why the Examiner’s explanation is
insufficient, and we agree with the Examiner that the combined teachings of
Amano and Pottgen teach the claim limitations.
We, therefore, sustain the obviousness rejection of claims 11 and 17
based on Amano, Mault, and Pottgen.

ORDER
The Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1-55 is affirmed.
Requests for extensions of time in this inter partes reexamination
proceeding are governed by 37 C.F.R. § 1.956. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.79.
In the event neither party files a request for rehearing within the time
provided in 37 C.F.R. § 41.79, and this decision becomes final and
appealable under 37 C.F.R. § 41.81, a party seeking judicial review must
timely serve notice on the Director of the United States Patent and
Trademark Office. See 37 C.F.R. §§ 90.1 and 1.983.

AFFIRMED

Appeal 2015-000274
Reexamination Control 95/002,371
Patent 7,689,437 B1

17

Kilpatrick Townsend Stockton, LLP
1100 Peachtree Street
Suite 2800
Atlanta, GA 30309

Third Party Requester:

Fenwick & West, LLP
Silicon Valley Center
801 California Street
Mountain View, CA 94041

I
Merriam- 4 ~
Webster's .
Collegiate"
Dictionary
TENTH EDITION
Merriam-Webster, Incorporated
Springfield, Massachusetts, U.S.A.
.-----®-" -
A GENUINE MERRIAM-WEBSTER
The name Webster 'alone is no guarantee of excellence. It is used by a
number of publi~hers and may serve mainly to mislead an unwary buyer.
Merriam~ Webster1M is the name you should look for when you consider
the purchase of dictionaries or other fine reference books. It carries the
reputation of a company that has been publishing since 1831 and is your
assurance of quality and authority.
" "
Copyright © 1997"-by Merriam-Webster; Incorpo'rated
Philippines Copyright 1997 by Merriam-Webster, Incorporated
Library of ,Congress-Catalogin'g in Publication Data
Main entry under title:
Merriam.Webster's collegiate dictionary.;- 10th ed.
p. em.
Includes index.
ISBN 0-87779-708-0 (unindexed : alk. paper). - ISBN 0-87779-709-9 (indexed:
alk. paper). - ISBN 0-87779-710-2 (deluxe: alk. paper)."- ISBN 0-87779-707-2
(laminated cover).
1. English language-Dictionaries. I. Merriam-Webster, Inc.
PE1628"M36 1997
423---dc20 96-42529
CIP
Merriam-Webster's Collegiate® Dictionary, Tenth Edition principal copyright 1993
COLLEGIATE is a registered trademark of Merriam-Webster, Incorporated
All rights reserved. No part of this book covered by the copyrights hereon may be
reproduced or copied in any form or by any means-graphic, electronic, or mechani-
cal, including photocopying, taping, or infonnation storage and retrieval systerns-
without written permission of the publisher.
Made in the United States of America
1920RMcN97
" ,~
328 diquat • dirt bike
.. ',
'­
",' ,
.:
,'li.
. ,
..

..
, ...
">
"t\.,.
...

""lp
.... :--'*f>- .. ~,J
.. . ~.
,~-"
.t. ., ~,
... ~,~...
~.
.. ..., ..' . 4h ..if!­."
"
."
Ii
,b.. ,.;~ ..
~""".
folding together to protect writing on its

waxed surfaces 2: a picture or series of

pictures (as an altarpiece) painted or carved

on two hinged tablets 3: a work made up

of two matching parts

di·quat \·dj·.kwiit\ n (di- + quaternary]
(I96O) : a powerful nonpersistent herbicide
C 12H 12Br,N, that has been used to control
water weeds (as the water hyacinth)
dir-dum \·dir-d"m. 'd~r-\ n [ME (northern
diaL) durdan. dUrdum uproar. fro Celt; akin
to W dwrdd noise. • Mlr dordan hum­
ming. droning] (ca. Scot: BLAME
dire \ 'dir\ adj dir (L dfrus; akin
to Gk deinos terrifying. Skt dV"$ti he hates]
(I 567) 1 a: exciting horror (,.;., suffering)
b : DISMAL. OPPRESSIVE <- days) 2: warn·

ing of disaster (a - lorecast) 3 a: desper.

ately urgent (- need) b: EXTREME (- diptych 2

poverty) - dire-Iy adv- dire.ness n

Idi.rect \da-·rekt. di·\ vb (ME. Ir. L directus straight, fro PI'. of dirigere
to direct - more at DRESSl vi (14<:) 1 a om: to write (a letter) to a
person b: to mark with the name and address of the intended recipi­
ent c: to impart orally d: to adapt in expression so as to have par­
ticular applicability (a lawyer who -s his appeals to intelligence) 2 a
: to regulate the activities or course of b: to carry out the organizing.
energizing. and supervising of e: to dominate and determine the
course of d: to train and lead performances of 3: to cause to tum.
move. or point undeviatingly or to follow a straight course (X rays are
-ed through the body) 4: to point, extend. or project in a specified
line or course 5: to request or enjoin with authority 6: to show or
point out the way for ,.,. vi 1: to point out. prescribe, or determine a
course or procedure 2: to act as director lliyn see COMMAND. CON­
DUCT
'direct adj (ME. fro L direcrus] (l5c) 1 of a celestial bady: moving in
the general p direction from west to east : not retrograde 2
a: stemmin a source (- result) b: being or paSs­
ing in a straIght I t from parent .: LINEAL <­
ancestor) c: having no compromising or <"" in­
sult) 3 a: proceeding from one point to or space
without deviation or interruption : STRAIGHT b: proceeding by the
sbortest way (the - route) 4: NATURAL. STRAIGHTFORWARD (- man·
ner) 5 a: marked by absence of an intervening agency. instrumen­
tality. or influence b: effected by the action of the people or the elec·
torate and not by representatives (- democracy) c: consisting of or
reproducing the exact words of a speaker or writer 6: characterized
by close logical, causal. or consequential relationship (- evidence) 7
: capable of dyeing without the aid 01 a mordant
'direct adv (14<:): in a direct way: as B: from point to point without
deviation : by the shortest way (flew - to Miami) b: from the
source without interruption or diversion (the writer must take his ma­
terial ~ from life -Douglas Stewart> c: without an intervening
agency or step (buy ~ from the manufacturer)
direct action n (I912) : action that seeks to achieve an end directly
and by the most immediately effective means (as boycott or strike)
direct current" (ca. 1889) : an electric current flowing in one direc­
tion only and substantially constant in value - abbr. DC
di.rect.ed adj ()891l 1: subject to supervision or regulation (a ­
reading program for students) 2: having Ii positive or negative sense
(-line segment) - di.rect.ed.ness n
direct examination n (ca. 1859): the first examination of a witness by
the party calling the witness - compare CROss.£XAMINATlON
di.rec·tion \d~-'rek-sh;m, dI·\ n (! 50) 1: guidance Or supervision of
action or conduct : MANAGEMENT 2 archaic : SUPERSCRIPTION 3 a
: an explicit instruction : ORDER b: assistance in pointing out the
proper route uSU. used in pI. (asked for ~s to the beacb) 4: the
line or course on which something is moving or is aimed to move or
along which something is pointing or facing 5 archaic: DIRECTORATE
I 6 a: a channel or direct course of thought or action b: TEN­
DENCY. TREND c: a guidin ' g. or motivating purpose 7 a
: the art and technique of orchestra. band. or a show (as
for stage or screen) b: a . . . eating the appro­
priate tempo, mood, or intensit~ of a passage or movement in music ­
di.rec·tion·less \.Ias\ adj - d,·rec.tion.less.ness \-n",\ n
di.rec·tion.al \-shn"l, -sh,,·n"l\ adj 0880 1: of. relating to. or indi­
cating direction in space, a: suitable for detecting the direction from
wbich radio signals come or for sending out radio signals in one direc·
tion only b: operating most effectively in a particular direction 2
: relatinjl to direction or guidance esp. of tbought or effort - di.rec­
tion.al.,.ty \-.rek·sho··na·I,,·te\ n
direction angle n (ca. 1909) : an angle made by a given line with an
axis of reference: specif: such an angle made by a straight line with tbe
three axes of a rectangular Cartesian coordinate system - usu. used in
pI.
direction cosine n (ca. 1889) : any of the cosines of the three angles
_ between a directed line in space and the positive direction of the axes of
a rectangular Cartesian coordinate system - usu. used in pI.
direction finder n (1913): a radio receivin!! device for determining the
direction of incoming radio waves that tYPically consists of a coil an­
tenna rotating freely on a vertical axis ,
Idi.rec.tive \d... ·rek-tiv, dI·\ adj (I5c) 1: serving or intended to
guide, govern, or influence 2: serving to point direction; specif: DI­
RECTIONAL I b 3: of or relating to psychotherapy or counseling in
wbich the counselor introduces information. content, or attitudes not
previously expressed by the client
'directive n (902) : something that serves to direct, guide. and USU.
impel toward an action or goal; esp : an authoritative instrument iS6
sued by a high-level body or official
di.rec.tiv.j.ty \d,••rek-·ti-va-te. (.)dl·\ n (1928): the property of being
directional
direct lighting n (1928): lighting in which the greater part of the light
goes directly from the source to the area lit
'di.rect·ly \d,,-·rek(t)-Ie. dh in sense 2 osp do··rek·le or ·drek·le\ adv
(l5e) 1 a: in a dir~t manner (- relevant) (the road runs ~ east
and west) b: in immediate physical contact c' in

direct variation 2 a, without delay : IMMEDIATELY

while: SHORTLY

'di.rect.1y \d... ·rek{t).le. di·: ·drek·le\ conj (1795)
ately after: AS SOON AS <- I received it I rang up
-F. W. Crofts}
directly proportional n (! 796) : related by direct
Ji:~~t;~\E~Yr!~"ftzW~A~rinted matter (as
soliciting business or contributions and mailed
di.rect.ness \d...·rek(tl-n"'. di·\ n (1598) t:
accurate in course or aim l: strict pertinence :
NESS