Appeal No. 98-0680
Application No. 08/685,160
meaning of the word "adjacent" since "that term is described
and defined in the application such [as] at page 31, line 9
through page 32, line 2, for example" (brief, page 11);
however, we have carefully reviewed the specification but fail
to find therein any explicit definition of the word
"adjacent." While the referenced portion of the specification
states that conventional manufacturing processes "typically"
can result in margins having a width of "no less than about 5
mm.," and that such a margin is understood as being
"adjacent," there is no definition which limits the meaning of
the word "adjacent" to such a width. Since the appellants
have failed to make the meaning of "adjacent" explicitly clear
in the specification, the term "adjacent" will be given its
"broadest reasonable interpretation." See In re Morris,
supra, and In re Zletz, supra. This being the case, we find
no error in the examiner's use of a dictionary to determine
the meaning of this term. While the appellants have relied
upon the decision in General American Transportation v. Cyro-
Trans., 93 F.3d 766, 39 USPQ2d 1801 (Fed. Cir. 1996) for the
notion that it is improper to utilize a dictionary to
12
Page: Previous 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007