Appeal No. 1998-2720
Application 08/352,730
the examiner asserted that the term “standard positions” in
claims 1 and 3 could be read on either the starting positions
of the pointers or on the prior displayed pointer positions
before the battery was exchanged [answer, pages 4-5].
Therefore, the examiner interpreted “standard positions” to
mean the positions of the pointers prior to battery exchange
as disclosed by Wakabayashi. The examiner referred to
appellants’ specification as supporting this interpretation of
standard positions.
Appellants basically respond that there is no way in
which the term “standard positions” can be interpreted to
include the positions of the pointers prior to the battery
exchange when the term is considered in view of the disclosure
or given its ordinary interpretation [reply brief].
We agree with the position argued by appellants.
Although we do not find the term “standard positions”
explicitly defined anywhere in the specification, we agree
with appellants that standard positions cannot be read on
positions of the pointers prior to battery exchange. As noted
by appellants, such positions are not “standard” in any sense
of the word. The ordinary definition of “standard” when used
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007