Appeal No. 2005-0840
Application No. 09/847,447
appeal are given the broadest reasonable meaning in light of the
appellants’ specification). This interpretation is consistent
with the specification which indicates that the claimed alignment
elements and devices embrace various designs. Specifically, the
specification, at pages 5 and 6, describes the claimed alignment
elements and devices in its “Detail Description” section as
follows:
A pair of alignment elements 112 on the backplate 110
provide x and y alignment control at display assembly
between the display tile 100 and the backplate 110. A
variety of alignment elements 112 may be used including
holes, grooves, tabs, and a variety of pin shapes as a
few examples . . . .
. . . .
Referring to Figure 3, the backframe 120 may
include a number of alignment devices 124 to receive
the alignment elements 112 . . . . The alignment
devices 124 may be pins, holes, grooves, or tabs, as a
few examples . . . . [Emphasis added.]
There is nothing in the claims on appeal and/or the specification
which indicates that the claimed alignment elements and devices
do not embrace the so-called “passive” alignment elements and
devices of the type (contact pads and contact pads having solder)
described in either Li or Seraphim. Thus, on this record, we are
constrained to agree with the examiner that Li and Seraphim
individually teaches the claimed alignment elements and devices.
-6-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007