Appeal 2007-1100
Application 10/384,642
Based on this evidence, we find the plain meaning of the term
“adjacent” is simply not limited to requiring a common endpoint or border
as Appellant argues, but rather can encompass things that are not in contact.
We therefore decline to adopt Appellant’s narrower construction of
“adjacent.” See In re Morris, 127 F.3d 1048, 1056, 44 USPQ2d 1023, 1029
(Fed. Cir. 1997) (“Absent an express definition in their specification, the fact
that appellants can point to definitions or usages that conform to their
interpretation does not make the PTO's definition unreasonable when the
PTO can point to other sources that support its interpretation.”).
Even if we adopt Appellant’s definition of “mutually” as “shared in
common,”4 a reasonable construction of “mutually adjacent” image display
areas would include image display areas that are situated near or close to
each other, but not necessarily touching.
With this construction, we turn to the prior art. In our view, Miyao’s
ring-like formation of partially overlapping image display areas in Fig. 1
reasonably constitutes an “image display strip” giving the term its broadest
reasonable interpretation. Even with Appellant’s definition that a strip is
“long” and “narrow,”5 it need not be straight. In short, image display strips
can be annular or ring-shaped -- a fact evidenced by Appellant’s own
all or most of one side”); Webster’s Revised Unabridged Dictionary, 1913
ed., at
http://machaut.uchicago.edu/?resource=Webster%27s&word=adjacent&use
1913=on (last visited June 7, 2007) (“Things are adjacent when they lie
close each other, not necessary in actual contact…Things are adjoining
when they meet at some line or point of junction….) (emphasis added).
4 See Br. 12.
5 See Br. 10.
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013