Appeal No. 96-1462
Application 08/025,189
receiver as a projector of an image, whereas appellants rely on a
definition which is more appropriate to the conventional use of
the term projection television. We find ourselves in agreement
with appellants on this point.
When interpreting a claim, words of the claim are
generally given their ordinary and accustomed meaning, unless it
appears from the specification or the file history that they were
used differently by the inventor. Carroll Touch, Inc. v. Electro
Mechanical Sys., Inc., 15 F.3d 1573, 1577, 27 USPQ2d 1836, 1840
(Fed. Cir. 1993). As noted above, appellants’ specification
clearly indicates that CRT televisions and LCD panel televisions
are not systems for projecting television signals onto a
projection screen. Although claims are to be given their
broadest reasonable interpretation during prosecution, it is not
reasonable to read claim language in a manner which is
inconsistent with the specification. Thus, we agree with
appellants that the claimed “projector,” “lens” and “projection
screen” cannot be met by a conventional CRT or LCD flat panel.
We also note that if you went into a store to buy a projection
television, you would not expect to be shown CRTs or LCD flat
panels. The art has come to recognize that projection television
is a specific type of subclass of televisions.
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007