Appeal No. 2000-0206 Page 13
Application No. 08/699,328
With respect to claim 15, appellant (brief, pp. 3-4) argues
that the Lectric Lites sign does not disclose:
1) the secondary traffic symbol providing "traffic information
unrelated to the first traffic information" and
2) "the secondary symbol being a pictograph of at least a part
of a regulatory or warning traffic sign."
Appellant's first argument, which my colleagues found
persuasive, appears to be based on an interpretation of
"unrelated" which, in my opinion, is unduly restrictive,
especially when read in light of appellant's specification.2
From my perspective, it is often the case that two objects or
items of information may be at the same time considered unrelated
in some contexts and related in other contexts. Merely by way of
example, the information provided by one regulatory or warning
symbol is by its very nature related to other regulatory or
warning symbols and the information they provide, in that they
are all regulatory or warning symbols. On the other hand, if
2 In proceedings before it, the PTO applies to the verbiage
of claims the broadest reasonable meaning of the words in their
ordinary usage as they would be understood by one of ordinary
skill in the art, taking into account whatever enlightenment by
way of definitions or otherwise that may be afforded by the
written description contained in the applicant's specification.
In re Morris, 127 F.3d 1048, 1054, 44 USPQ2d 1023, 1027 (Fed.
Cir. 1997).
Page: Previous 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007