Appeal No. 2004-2288
Application No. 10/084,723
during proceedings before the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office.
See In re Etter, 756 F.2d 852, 858, 225 USPQ 1, 5 (Fed. Cir.
1985)(en banc) (Claims are given the broadest reasonable
interpretation consistent with the specification); In re Cohn,
438 F.2d 989, 993, 169 USPQ 95, 98 (CCPA 1971)(”No claim may be
read apart from and independent of the supporting disclosure on
which it is based”). The words in a claim, however, are given
the special meaning intended by the inventor if such intent is
apparent from the specification. In re Paulsen, 30 F.3d 1475,
1479-80, 31 USPQ2d 1671, 1674 (Fed. Cir. 1994); Intellical, Inc.
v. Phonometrics, Inc., 952 F.2d 1384, 1387, 21 USPQ2d 1383, 1386
(Fed. Cir., 1992).
Applying the above precedents to the present situation, we
determine that the claimed pixel electrode does not encompass the
wire taught by Nishizawa. As is apparent from page 5, line 31,
to page 6, line 7, of the specification, the claimed pixel
electrode is defined differently from the wire taught by
Nishizawa. Specifically, the specification, at page 5, line 31,
to page 6, line 7, states:
Each pixel is arranged adjacent the intersection of
respective ones of sets of row and column address
conductors 14 and 16 to which, in use, selection
(gating) and data signals are supplied respectively by
a peripheral drive circuit (not shown) to drive the
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007