Appeal 2007-1100
Application 10/384,642
Such an interpretation, according to Appellant, is supported by both the
intrinsic record and extrinsic evidence. Appellant emphasizes that neither
Miyao nor Angiulo disclose any type of common endpoint or border in
either reference’s display of images (Br. 9-12; Reply Br. 9-10; Supp. Reply
Br. 4-6).
The Examiner argues that the broadest reasonable interpretation of
“mutually adjacent” is not limited to display areas that share a common edge
or border as Appellant argues, but rather is fully met by Miyao’s overlapped
display areas that are “mutually adjacent” to each other. The Examiner adds
that Miyao shows a common border for adjacent display portions (e.g.,
overlapping rectangles containing letters “A” and “B” respectively) (Answer
9).
We will sustain the Examiner’s rejection of independent claim 1. At
the outset, we disagree with Appellant that the term “mutually adjacent”
must be interpreted to require a common endpoint or border. Significantly,
Appellant has not specifically defined the term “mutually adjacent” in the
Specification; accordingly, we construe the term with its plain meaning (i.e.,
the ordinary and customary meaning given to the term by those of ordinary
skill in the art). See Brookhill-Wilk 1, LLC. v. Intuitive Surgical, Inc., 334
F.3d 1294, 1298, 67 USPQ2d 1132, 1136 (Fed. Cir. 2003) (“In the absence
of an express intent to impart a novel meaning to the claim terms, the words
are presumed to take on the ordinary and customary meanings attributed to
them by those of ordinary skill in the art.”); see also Phillips v. AWH Corp.,
415 F.3d 1303, 1312, 75 USPQ2d 1321, 1326 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc).
To determine the ordinary meaning of commonly understood words, it
is entirely appropriate to cite a dictionary definition. See Agfa Corp. v. Creo
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013