Appeal No. 2004-2288
Application No. 10/084,723
devices, (Figure 1 & 3b # 1a, 2a, 3a, & 4a, Col. 2[,] Lines
24-32), and occupying respective second areas, (Figure 3b
examiner’s label #10), of the substrate, (Figure 3b #3);
wherein the substrate, (Figure 3b #3), is configured such
that flexing of the substrate, (Figure 3b #3) occurs more
readily at the second areas, (Figure 3b examiner’s label
#10), than at the first areas, (Figure 3b examiner’s label
#11).
4. Referring to claim 2, [a] curved matrix array device
comprising a thin film matrix circuit, carried on the
surface of a substrate, (Figure 3b #3), which matrix
circuit, (Figure 1), includes semiconductor devices, (Figure
3b # 1a, 2a, 3a, & 4a[,] Col. 2[,] Lines 24-32), arranged in
a regular array and occupying respective first areas,
(Figure 3b examiner’s label #11), of the substrate, (Figure
3b #3), and pixel electrodes, (Figure 1 #2), correspondingly
coupled to each of the semiconductor devices, (Figure 1 & 3b
# 1a, 2a, 3a, & 4a[,] Col. 2[,] Lines 24-32), and occupying
respective second areas, (Figure 3b examiner’s label #10),
of the substrate, (Figure 3b #3); wherein the substrate,
(Figure 3b #3), is configured such that curvature of the
device is accommodated substantially by deformation at the
substrate, (Figure 3b #3), at the second areas, (Figure
3b[,] examiner’s label #10).
The appellant argues that element 2 of Figure 1 in Nishizawa is a
wire, not the claimed pixel electrode. In response to this
argument, the examiner asserts that the claimed pixel electrode
embraces the wire taught in Nishizawa. The dispositive question
is, therefore, whether the claimed pixel electrode, as properly
interpreted, encompasses the wire taught in Nishizawa. On this
record, we answer this question in the negative.
As a general rule, the words in a claim are given their
broadest reasonable meaning consistent with the specification
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007