Appeal No. 96-1462
Application 08/025,189
not have a screen positioned in spaced relationship to the lens,
and (4) the Mercedes-Benz LCD screen is not fixedly mounted to
the housing [brief, pages 8-10]. The examiner individually
responds to each of these arguments in the answer in paragraphs
respectively labeled 11.1, 11.2, 11.4 and 11.5 [answer, pages 4-
6].
Although we can agree with some of the points made by the
examiner, we cannot agree with the fundamental position that the
Mercedes-Benz LCD is a projector and screen assembly within the
meaning of claim 1. Appellants’ specification specifically
describes LCD panel displays and CRT television displays and the
disadvantages these types of television displays have compared to
a projection television display. Thus, when the specification is
discussing the projection system of the invention, it is clearly
excluding LCD panels and CRTs from this class. The question is
whether the clear intent of appellants can be ignored by reading
the claims to cover something which is clearly disclaimed by
appellants’ specification.
The examiner and appellants have both pointed to the
definition of the word “projector” as set forth in Webster’s
Ninth New Collegiate Dictionary. The examiner relies on two of
the definitions which would include basically any television
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007