Appeal No. 1998-2578
Application No. 08/443,307
instant specification. See In re Paulsen, 30 F.3d 1475, 1480, 31 USPQ2d 1671, 1674
(Fed. Cir. 1994) (repeating the principle that where an inventor chooses to be his own
lexicographer and gives terms uncommon meanings, he must set out the uncommon
definition in the patent disclosure). See also Beachcombers Int’l, Inc. v. WildeWood
Creative Prods., Inc., 31 F.3d 1154, 1158, 31 USPQ2d 1653, 1656 (Fed. Cir. 1994)
("As we have repeatedly said, a patentee can be his own lexicographer provided the
patentee's definition, to the extent it differs from the conventional definition, is clearly
set forth in the specification."); Johnson Worldwide Assocs., Inc. v. Zebco Corp.,
175 F.3d 985, 989, 50 USPQ2d 1607, 1610 (Fed. Cir. 1999) (there is a "heavy
presumption" that claim language has its ordinary meaning).
We thus interpret the word “constructing” in accordance with the ordinary
meaning of its transitive verb form: “to make or form by combining or arranging parts or
elements,” or “to set in logical order.” See Webster’s Ninth New Collegiate Dictionary
(1990 ed.). The broadest reasonable interpretation of storing image data in an image
memory “in an arrangement capable of constructing multiple screens” thus requires no
more than the storing of image data in an image memory as taught by Kashigi.
Appellant, at pages 3 through 5 of Appellant’s Reply, submits arguments
concerning “compositing” and the “interpolation schemes” for compressing images as
disclosed by Kashigi. To the extent that appellant may be arguing that the image
compression, as described at column 9, line 15 through column 10, line 22 of Kashigi,
does not teach the feature of storing image data in an arrangement that is “capable of
-6-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007