Appeal No. 2002-0639 Page 5
Application No. 09/372,602
their ordinary and accustomed meaning, unless it appears from the specification that they were
used differently by the inventor. In re Paulsen, 30 F.3d 1475, 1480, 31 USPQ2d 1671, 1674
(Fed. Cir. 1994). Moreover, the words of the claim must be interpreted in the context in which
they are used. The words must not be considered one in isolation from the others. In re Geerdes,
491 F.2d 1260, 1262-63, 180 USPQ 789, 791 (CCPA 1974).
The claims are all directed to devices or articles including a matrix layer. Within the
matrix layer are retroreflective spheres, reflective pigments and luminescent pigments in a
resinous matrix material. The dispute lies in how the language at the end of the independent
claims regarding differences between two matrix regions is to be interpreted. All of the claims
require that the matrix layer have a plurality of matrix regions. At least two of the matrix regions
must differ in either the color or concentration of at least one of the retroreflective spheres,
reflective pigments and luminescent pigments. Furthermore, the difference in color or
concentration between the two matrix regions must be “visually appreciable so that at least two
said matrix regions contrastingly define at least one communicative form.” This language
requires that the differing matrix regions be large enough that the contrast between them
communicate something. This is akin to the black letter on this paper communicating a letter
against the white background of the paper.
After determining the meaning of the disputed words in the claim, we must determine
what the prior art describes and make a comparison. Here, we concentrate on Bingham, as this
reference is the anchor that holds each of the rejections together. Bingham describes a
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007