Appeal 2007-1480
Application 10/667,078
Appellant argues that independent claim 1 recites “an imaging device
for forming an image of a portion of an edge of a print medium” and
contends that the Examiner is not giving the term “image” its ordinary and
customary meaning. (Br. 4-5 and Reply Br. 1-3). The Examiner maintains
that the Specification should be the focal point of the interpretation even if
there is no express definition therein to interpret the claim language (Answer
7-11). We agree with both the Examiner and Appellant that a combination
of both dictionaries and the Specification can serve as a guide for
interpreting the meaning of a term in a given claim. We note however, that
the best source to put the claimed invention into context is Appellant’s
Specification.
Here, we find both sources useful, but neither controlling. Rather, we
find the language of independent claim 1 and the use of the phrase “an
image of a portion of an edge” to be a controlling in the interpretation. The
question is: what is a “portion” of an edge with either asserted definition of
an image. We find that a portion of an edge is as little as a single point or
two points that determine a line/edge which we find to be taught by the
image sensor 29 of Endo. We find that the Specification at page 4, lines 11-
13, states that “[t]he image generated by the position detector is preferably a
plurality of pixel values organized as a plurality of rows that run in the
direction of travel of the print head.” We find this language to clarify that
the image of the portion of the edge may be a single pixel value obtained by
the image sensor 29 which we find to be taught by Endo.
If Appellant desired to claim an array of photodetectors then the claim
should have been amended. Here, we find the broadest reasonable
interpretation of independent claim 1 to read on the teachings of Endo.
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013