Opinion ID: 779640
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: display areas arranged in a pattern

Text: 81 The limitation display areas arranged in a pattern appears in the asserted claims of the '481 and '619 patents, as well as claim 4 of the '890 patent. The district court construed pattern to mean having a systematic arrangement. Telegenix argues that this construction is too general, and the limitation should be limited to a seven-segment display pattern, for example, that shown in Figures 1a-c of the '890 patent. TDS responds that this limitation is not limited to a seven-segment display or any other fixed pattern, and that the scope of the claims is broad enough to encompass a matrix display. 82 Where pattern is described in the specifications of the patents in suit, the seven-segment display is listed as an example of the preferred font. The '481 patent specification describes seven elongated display segments a, b, c, d, e, f, g, arranged in a conventional pattern. '481 patent, col. 2, ll. 24-25. The preferred embodiment of the '890 patent is described as including a variable color display area consisting of seven segments 31 arranged in a well known 7-segment font. '890 patent, col. 2, ll. 16-18. Nowhere in the specification is the limitation display areas arranged in a pattern restricted, explicitly or implicitly, to the seven-segment arrangement of the preferred embodiment. 83 Telegenix does not dispute that the patents in suit describe the seven-segment pattern in exemplary language. Instead, Telegenix argues that U.S. Patent No. 4,086,514 ('514 patent) establishes that the same inventor represented matrix displays and seven-segment displays as two separate embodiments of the same invention. We fail to understand the relevance of Telegenix's argument. Whether or not the claims in an unrelated patent are broad enough to encompass both a matrix and the familiar seven-segment pattern, this proposition sheds no light on whether the claims of the patents in suit are limited to the seven-segment pattern. See Abbott Labs. v. Dey, L.P., 287 F.3d 1097, 1104, 62 USPQ2d 1545, 1550 (Fed.Cir.2002) (finding the relationship between two unrelated patents, although having common subject matter, a common inventor, and the same assignee, insufficient to render particular arguments made during prosecution of [one of the patents] equally applicable to the claims of [the other patent]). 84 Referring to the prosecution history, the Examiner's Statement of Reasons for Allowance for the '619 patent stated, In this manner, multicolored arrays (i.e., color cathode ray tube displays such as Takeda, of record) in which there is no physical distinction between a foreground or background pixel (display area), are distinguished from by the claimed subject matter. Although the prosecution history may help define the scope of a term if relevant, see Southwall Techs., Inc. v. Cardinal IG Co., 54 F.3d 1570, 1576, 34 USPQ2d 1673, 1676 (Fed.Cir.1995), this Examiner's statement has no bearing on the meaning of the term pattern. Nor does this statement limit the scope of pattern to the familiar seven-segment font. 85 Accordingly, because there is nothing in the claims or the intrinsic evidence of record to indicate otherwise, we conclude that this limitation was correctly construed by the district court according to the ordinary meaning of pattern. The district court's construction, having a systematic arrangement, is not in error. 86